INTRA MOOT COUT COMPETITION 2024,

AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

Compendium Of the Cases Cited On behalf of the

Appellant in the matter of

Mr. AMIT..........................................................................................Appellant

v.

Mr. Bhuwan and State of Gujnagar...........................................Respondent

~1~
Compendium
 INTRA MOOT COUT COMPETITION 2024,
AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

TABLE OF CASE
1. Saradamani Kandappan V. S. Rajalakshmi & Ors

2. Chand Rani Vs. Kamal Rani

3. Gaddipati Divija & ANR. Vs Pathuri Samrajyam & Ors

4. Welspun Specialty Solutions Ltd Vs. ONGC

5. Coombs V s. Nolan

6. State of Gujarat V. Memon Mahomed Hajin Hasan

7. LASALAGAON MERCHANTS COOP BANK LTD. VS.

PRABHUDAS HATHIBHAI

~2~
Compendium

1.Saradanami Kandappan Vs. S. Rajalakshmi & Ors.

 INTRA MOOT COUT COMPETITION 2024,
AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

The Case is Mentioned in issue 1 para 2

Facts Of the case:-

Plaintiff entered into contract for purchase of certain mortgaged properties with defendant on
following terms: first, that the execution of sale deed shall be at the convenience and desire of
plaintiff; subject to her satisfaction of title to the land and nil encumbrance; second, absolute
obligation to pay sale price on specific dates, expressly and unequivocally mentioned to be the
essence of the contract, by plaintiff failing which defendants could cancel the deed; third, if
plaintiff finds title to be unsatisfactory or unacceptable then defendant will be obliged to pay
back the entire money received.

Plaintiff didn’t pay the entire sale consideration within stipulated time and defendant cancelled
the deed alleging that plaintiff had satisfied herself of title to property at the time of entering
into agreement and till execution of deed they were not obliged to give her original papers of
title of property, upon which plaintiff denied any satisfaction of title to the property and alleged
the repudiation as breach while demanding specific performance in Court.

Judgement of the case:-

This Judgment is taken from landmark Judgement from case "Chand Rani v/s Kamal Rani”
"It is a well-accepted principle that in the case of sale of immovable property, time is never
regarded as the essence of the contract. In fact, there is a presumption against time being the
essence of the contract. This principle is not in any way different from that obtainable in
England. Under the law of equity which governs the rights of the parties in the case of specific
performance of contract to sell real estate, law looks not at the letter but at the substance of the
agreement. It has to be ascertained whether under the terms of the contract the parties named a
specific time within which completion was to take place, really and in substance it was intended
that it should be completed within a reasonable time. An intention to make time the essence of
the contract must be expressed in unequivocal language.”

Explaination:-

Even if there is the essence of the time but the intension to complete the performance is
important. If in any Circumstance the Contract couldn't complete party wouldn't be liable for
breach of Contract as party had intensions to Complete it.

~3~
Compendium

2. CHAND RANI V. KAMAL RANI

 INTRA MOOT COUT COMPETITION 2024,
AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR
The Case is mentioned in issue 1 para 2 and para 4

Fact of the case:-

This special leave appeal is filed against the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi’s judgment in
R.F.A. (O.S.) No. 15 of 1975, dated October 26, 1979, reversing the learned Single Judge’s
decree for specific performance in O.S. No. 463 of 1971.
An agreement for sale was signed by Kamal Rani and Chand Rani on August 26, 1971. This
deal was reached through Chand Rani’s husband, Niranjan Nath. Kamal Rani agreed to sell her
house and property to Chand Rani for Rs. 1, 78, 000, which included a free-hold plot bearing
No. 30, Block ‘K’, Green Park, New Delhi (Village Kharera) measuring 311 sq. yards with a
double-storeyed residential building constructed thereon, as well as fittings and fixtures. An
amount of Rs. 30,000 was paid as earnest money on the day of execution.

A further sum of Rs. 98,000 was due within 10 days of the agreement’s completion, according
to the agreement. The remainder of Rs. 50,000 was due at the time of sale deed registration. The
parties agreed that the vendor, Kamal Rani, would redeem the property by repaying a debt of
Rs. 25,000 from the Rs. 30,000 paid at the time of execution. The Life Insurance Corporation of
India had a mortgage on the property. The vendor was also required to secure a certificate of tax
clearance. On or before October 31, 1971, the sale deed was to be signed.
The first floor of the property had been rented out at the time of this agreement. The vendor was
required to hand over documentation relevant to the property in the suit, as well as vacant
possession of the first floor, by September 30, 1971, and possession of the front half at the time
of registration of the sale deed, according to the agreement. It was also agreed that if the vendee
fails to pay the sale consideration and get the sale deed recorded within the stated time frame,
the value of Rs. 30,000 will be forfeited to the vendor.

Chand Rani and her husband filed O.S. No. 463 of 1971 for specific performance based on this
agreement. The defendant (Kamal Rani) was allegedly summoned to finalize the sale through
multiple letters and notices, but received no answer. She didn’t follow through on her end of the
bargain. The agreement was nullified and the sum of Rs. 30,000 was forfeited since the plaintiff
failed to pay the sum of Rs. 98,000 within 10 days of the agreement’s date, namely, September
6, 1971. On September 15, 1971, the defendant sent a letter to this effect.
In response to the defendant’s letter, the plaintiff wrote to her, requesting that she complete the
sale deed and promising to pay the balance of the price at the time of execution. As a result of
the defendant’s failure to comply with this demand, a lawsuit was brought seeking particular
performance of the agreement or, in the alternative, damages in the amount of Rs. 1, 50,000,
including a refund of Rs.30, 000.

The execution of the suit agreement was admitted by the defense. Similarly, the contract’s
essential was the receipt of the sum of Rs. 30,000 within 10 days of the agreement’s execution
date. Because the agreed-upon amount was not paid, the defendant was entitled to declare the
contract null and void. The defendant was, without a doubt, required to redeem the suit property
and provide the document by September 30, 1971.

~4~
Compendium

However, this could only be done if a payment of Rs. 98,000 was made within 10 days of the
agreement’s execution. Possession of the first floor had to be given at the moment of the selling
deed’s registration. In fact, by September 20, 1971, the occupants had vacated the first level.
 INTRA MOOT COUT COMPETITION 2024,
AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR
The front half of the house was already in her possession, and she could simply deliver it at the
appropriate time. An amount of Rs. 98,000 was never offered by the plaintiff. The first
plaintiff’s husband demanded possession of the ground floor in exchange for a payment of Rs.
98,000. This demand was in violation of the contract’s provisions. As a result, the defendant
refused to comply with the requirement. The claim is ill-conceived in these circumstances and is
likely to be dismissed. The amount of Rs. 30,000 was properly forfeited against her.

Judgement of the case:-

“It is a well-accepted principle that in the case of sale of immovable property, time is never
regarded as the essence of the contract. In fact, there is a presumption against time being the
essence of the contract. This principle is not in any way different from that obtainable in
England. Under the law of equity which governs the rights of the parties in the case of specific
performance of contract to sell real estate, law looks not at the letter but at the substance of the
agreement. It has to be ascertained whether under the terms of the contract the parties named a
specific time within which completion was to take place, really and in substance it was intended
that it should be completed within a reasonable time. An intention to make time the essence of
the contract must be expressed in unequivocal language.”

~5~
Compendium

3.GADDIPATI DIVIJA & ANR v/s PATHURI SMRAJYAM & Ors.

The case is mentioned in issue 1 para 4

 INTRA MOOT COUT COMPETITION 2024,
AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

Fact of the case:-

In this case, Gaddipati Divija and Gaddipati Sai, who are minors, had been represented by their
maternal grandmother, Smt. Inturi Chenchamma. They are the children of the late Shri. G. V.
Gopala Rao.

Shri. G. V. Gopala Rao acquired a property known as the ‘Suit Property’ during his lifetime
from Smt. B. Alivelu Mangamma. He subsequently entered into an Agreement to Sell with Smt.
Pathuri Samrajyam (Respondent No. 1) in August 2002, agreeing to sell the Suit Property for a
total of Rs. 11,88,000, with an initial advance payment of Rs. 4,00,000.

The Agreement stipulated that Shri. G. V. Gopala Rao would execute a Sale Deed after
demarcating the property and receiving the remaining sale amount within three months.
However, when the three-month period passed, he issued a Notice to Respondent No. 1 on
January 2, 2003, demanding the outstanding balance of Rs. 7,88,000.

In response, Respondent No. 1 denied the allegations of non-payment, and in a reply dated
January 10, 2003, she expressed her willingness to proceed with the transaction but requested
the removal of property attachments and measurement before paying the balance and
completing the registration.

Shri. G. V. Gopala Rao had also borrowed money from Shri. Kalluri Kondaiah (Respondent No.
2) and Shri. M. Koteswara Rao (husband of Respondent No. 3). Following Shri. G. V. Gopala
Rao’s death in 2003, Respondents No. 2 and No. 3 filed suits to recover the borrowed amounts.

The legal representatives of Shri. G. V. Gopala Rao, namely the Appellants, were required to
resolve the property attachment and settle the debts and execute the Sale Deed in favor of
Respondent No. 1. Failing to do so, Respondent No. 1 initiated a case seeking specific
performance of the Agreement to sell and a directive for the Sale Deed’s execution.

The Trial Court’s judgment in August 2007 partially dismissed the case, denying specific
performance but allowing recovery of the initial advance payment. Discontent with the Trial
Court’s judgment and order issued, Respondent No. 1 initiated an appeal in 2008 before the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Hyderabad. On October 5, 2010, the High Court accepted the
appeal and directed the Appellants to carry out the Sale Deed in favor of Respondent No. 1,
pending the receipt of the remaining sale consideration.

Subsequently, a petition in 2010 was submitted to the High Court on behalf of the minor
appellants by their maternal grandmother. This petition sought the reconsideration of the High
Court’s judgment issued on October 5, 2010, on the grounds that the Appellants were not
allowed to present their case. Nevertheless, the High Court dismissed this petition in a decision
rendered on December 10, 2010. Consequently, the Appellants appealed these decisions before
the Supreme Court of India in 2011.

~6~
Compendium

Judgment of the Case:-

“It is a well-accepted principle that in the case of sale of immovable property, time is never
regarded as the essence of the contract. In fact, there is a presumption against time being the
 INTRA MOOT COUT COMPETITION 2024,
AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR
essence of the contract. This principle is not in any way different from that obtainable in
England. Under the law of equity which governs the rights of the parties in the case of specific
performance of contract to sell real estate, law looks not at the letter but at the substance of the
agreement. It has to be ascertained whether under the terms of the contract the parties named a
specific time within which completion was to take place, really and in substance it was intended
that it should be completed within a reasonable time. An intention to make time the essence of
the contract must be expressed in unequivocal language.”

~7~
Compendium
 INTRA MOOT COUT COMPETITION 2024,
AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

4.WELSPUN SPECIALTY SOLUTION Ltd. V. ONGC

The Case is mentioned in issue 1 para 6

Fact of the Case:-

On winning the bid for the tender mooted by ONGC (respondent) for the purchase of steel
casing pipes, Welspun Specialty Solutions (appellant) got into a contract with the respondent. It
was explicitly mentioned in the contract that time was the essence under Section 55 of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872, and also in case of delay in deliveries of the material by the
appellant, both the parties agreed upon genuine liquidated damages to be levied.

Now on different occasions, there was a delay on part of the appellant to fulfil their obligations
and subsequent extensions were provided by the respondent against such delays. While making
payments against the various invoices given by the appellant, the respondent deducted an
aggregate amount of USD 8,07,804.03 and INR 1,05,367 as the stipulated liquidated damages in
the contract. Owing to such gross deduction, the appellant initiated arbitral proceedings and
sought a refund of the contentious deducted amount.

The arbitral tribunal gave the award in favour of the appellant based on the reasoning given on
two major points. Firstly, time was not considered to be of the essence as the contract contains
clauses that provided for extension in time and levying of penalties and liquidated damages in
case of delays. Secondly, it was concluded by the tribunal that since time was not of the essence,
therefore there could be no breach of contract and thus the respondent would not be entitled to
recover liquidated damages. For the loss suffered by the respondent, the tribunal awarded
unliquidated damages which amounted to less than what the respondent deducted from the final
invoices.

Displeased by the award, the respondent appealed the same before the District Court under
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Finding no issues, the Court refused to
alter the award. Further, it was appealed by the respondent in the High Court, wherein the Court
concluded that both the tribunal and District Court had erroneously looked over the
circumstances of the case. The respondent was allowed to recover damages. Thus, the appeal
finally came to the Supreme Court to decide upon the legality of the impugned award.

Judgment of the case:-

The Court stated that to understand whether the time is of the essence, the contract shall be read
as a whole and not just certain isolated provisions. The reasoning applied by the Arbitral
Tribunal was concurred with by the Court and it was further said that since the time is not of the
essence, it would not be appropriate to invoke the liquidated damages clause. The Tribunal’s
findings were found to be in line with the contractual expositions and no irregularity was found.

~8~
Compendium
 INTRA MOOT COUT COMPETITION 2024,
AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

5.COOMBS V. NOLAN

The case is mentioned in issue 2 from appellant side page 12 4th para.

Facts of the case:-

* A ship carrying cargo arrived in the Southern District of New York.

* The contract for the cargo stipulated a specific timeframe for unloading.
* The defendant, responsible for unloading, faced a delay due to an inability to obtain enough
horses.
* This inability stemmed from a prevailing horse flu pandemic at the time.

Judgments of the case:-

The District Court for the Southern District of New York excused the delay in unloading the
cargo. The court reasoned that the horse flu pandemic constituted an "Act of God", an
unforeseen event beyond the defendant's control, making the timely performance of the contract
impossible. As a result, the defendant was not held liable for the breach of contract due to the
impossibility of performance caused by this extraordinary circumstance.

In this case the district court for the Southern District of New York excused a delay in the
declare of cargo where the defendant could not obtain enough horses to unload a ship on time
due to a then prevailing horse flu pandemic on the ground that the horse flu pandemic fell within
the ambit of ‘Act Of God’.

~9~
Compendium
 INTRA MOOT COUT COMPETITION 2024,
AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

6.STATE OF GUJARAT V. MEMON MAHOMED HAJIN HASAN

The Case is mentioned in issue 3 from appellant side page 13 2nd para

Facts of the Case:-

Two trucks of the Memon Mahomed Haji Hasam (Haji Memon) who was carried on business as
an exporter of fish in the State of Junagadh (State of Gujarat) and style of Ayub Iqbal and
Company was seized by the police officials of Gujarat State under the case of smuggling and
seized on the ground of respondent had not paid import duties on said truck, they were used for
smuggling goods in state and some of the goods were smuggled good. The trucks were under
the government authority for several time period that is from 1947 to October 1951. After the
hearing of court for the Haji Memon case, Haji Memon appealed for return of said vehicles but
later on informed that they had been disposed of under an order of magistrate passed under
S.523 of code of criminal procedure (CrPC), the trucks were destructed due to corrosion and
environmental changes, machinery of vehicles, tyres and even some wheels were pilfered away
leaving only the skeleton of vehicle remained. The respondent filed appealed to the Home
Member of State.

Judgement of the Case:-

Later on, the judgement given by the honorable justice Shelat J. said that, one should not legally
bound to perform the contract of bailment. If you are taking bailer’s good then its bailee’s
responsibility to take care of good. No matter the bailee will be the government authority or
ordinary man, same rule shall be followed

“Bailment is dealt with by the Contract Act only in cases where it arises from a contract but it is
not correct to say that there cannot be a bailment without an enforceable contract.”

There can, therefore, be bailment and the relationship of a bailee in respect of specific property
without there being an enforceable contract.

Similarly, State was also obliged by the law in Pari Materia as bailee to take reasonable care of
trucks. Therefore, state would be liable to the value of the trucks.

~ 10 ~
Compendium
 INTRA MOOT COUT COMPETITION 2024,
AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

7.LASALAGAON MERCHANTS COOP BANK LTD. VS. PRABHUDAS

HATHIBHAI

Fact of the Case:-

In the present case plaintiff was a bank named Lasalgaon merchant co-operative bank and
defendants (1 & 2) were members of a partnership firm. Defendants had approached the plaintiff
bank to make them some advances for which the defendants agricultural produce was provided
as security (pledge), namely groundnuts, tobacco and jaggery. Bank was given constructive
possession of the goods on 20th November, 1952.
The condition of advancing money was it would be provided up to 60% of the value of the
goods pledged. The credit was set at a maximum of Rs. 5,000. The agreement was renewed on
November 16, 1953, and it was set to last until September 30, 1954.
• Defendants owed a total of around Rs. 2,332 in income-tax debts in December 1953.
• In their godown, defendants also had kept specified packages of tobacco. Plaintiff was given
the possession of the property(godown) by handing over the keys. Plaintiff had 97 packages of
tobacco in his possession at the time.
• The defendants (1 & 2) owed plaintiff Rs. 3,181 on 23th august, 1954.
• The Income-tax Officer, Nasik, issued a certificate, and delivered it to the Nasik Collector on
December 16, 1952. On December11,1953, he sent over a letter to the Collector requesting that
the latter make recoveries by attaching and selling the tobacco stock or attaching and selling the
open plot belonging to defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The Circle Officer went to the plaintiff’s
godown on August 23, 1954, valued the tobacco packages kept there under a Panchnama, and
attempted to attach them. He placed the goods(tobacco) in the same godown, locked it, and gave
the key over to the village’s police Patil.
• There were significant rains on 29/30 September 1954, and the ceiling of the godown where
the items were stored, flooded heavily, causing the tobacco to be ruined. The Collector
dispatched a telegraph to the Mamlatdar on October 1, 1954, requesting that

the commodities be returned to the plaintiff. But the plaintiff refused to take the delivery and
instead asked for the damages he suffered on account of loss.
• Plaintiff filed a case in trial court as well as district court but was only granted Rs. 857 as
damages which arose out of sale proceeds. It also issued a decree against defendants Nos. 1 and
2 for an amount of Rs. 3,455-1-0, with future interest of Rs. 3,181 at 6% per annum. This led to
the second appeal.

Judgment of the case:-

Plaintiff’s second appeal was allowed with cost throughout. All defendants are found liable in
the plaintiff’s lawsuit. In their individual capacities, defendants Nos. 5, 7, and 9 are not
accountable. The Court stated that the current case does not qualify as an act of God because the
damage was not caused by any force or reason beyond the respondent’s control. Furthermore,
by gaining possession of the goods, the government authorities play the role of the bailee. The
respondent must show that they took reasonable care as bailee and that the damage was caused
by an Act of God, the Court stated. Unable to prove their claim, the Government was declared
liable by the Court for failing to perform the duties of bailee. By affirming the Government’s
obligations as a qua bailee”, the ruling implies the validity of bailment even without a contract;
although, the Government has not possessed the commodities under a contract.

~ 11 ~
Compendium
INTRA MOOT COUT COMPETITION 2024,
AMITY UNIVERSITY JAIPUR