HIND CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

The Supreme Court held that the question of whether time was of the essence of the contract must be determined by the intention of the parties as inferred from the contract's terms. In this case, the contract included clauses for penalties and extensions, indicating that time was not intended to be essential. The Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's decision which failed to address this key issue, and reinstated the trial court's decree that recognized the appellant's claims for damages due to wrongful rescission of the contract.