GOVIND PRASAD CHATURVEDI vs HARI DUTT SHASTRI AND ANOTHER

The Supreme Court held that in contracts for the sale of immovable property, the mere fixation of a time period does not inherently make time the essence of the contract, as established in Gomathinarayana Pillai & Ors. v. Palaniswamy Nadar [1967] 1 SCR 227. The Court ruled that the question of whether time is of the essence cannot be raised for the first time in appeal without specific pleadings or issues being presented at the trial court. The Court found that the appellant was ready to perform his part of the contract, and thus allowed the appeal, reversing the High Court's decision.