Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963

— Art. 54 — Suit for specific performance of contract — When barred by limitation — Considerations involved — Applicability of first and second parts of Art. 54 — Extension of time fixed for performance in contract — Effect — Held, once it is proved that time fixed for performance of the contract has been extended by the parties (as in present case), instead of the first part of Art. 54, the second part thereof would become applicable — Moreover, on facts, held, the claim that the time fixed for performance was determinable with reference to the event of perfection of title of the vendor, is not borne out by a perusal of the agreement of sale — Hence the second part of Art. 54 was rightly applied by the courts below, (2006) 5 SCC 340-A

Contract Act, 1872

— Ss. 50 and 55 — Extension of time for performance of contract — Inference of — Basis for — Held, the same is not necessarily to be inferred from a written document — It can also be implied — Conduct of parties would be relevant in this behalf, (2006) 5 SCC 340-B

Contract Act, 1872

— S. 55 — Contract for sale of immovable property — Time when of the essence — Held, ordinarily time would not be of the essence in such contracts, (2006) 5 SCC 340-C

Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963

— Art. 54 — Suit for specific performance of contract for sale — When barred by limitation — Vendor causing delay in performance by failing to comply with applicable statutory requirements — Effect — Held, in such a case vendor cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong so as to raise a plea of limitation, (2006) 5 SCC 340-D

Limitation

Generally

— Benefit of bar of limitation — Conduct of party seeking — Relevance, (2006) 5 SCC 340-E

Contract Act, 1872

— S. 29 — Applicability — On facts, terms of agreement being neither uncertain nor vague — Held, S. 29 inapplicable, (2006) 5 SCC 340-F

Corporate Laws

Companies Act, 1956

— Ss. 46 and 48 — Applicability — Agreement for sale entered into by three Directors on behalf of Company and executed in name of Company by all five Directors — Further, Company never denying or disputing correctness of terms of agreement nor raising any plea that it was not binding on Company or that it was illegal — Validity and binding effect of such agreement on Company — Need for resolution of Company — Held, in such a situation even in the absence of a resolution by Company, the agreement could not have been held to be invalid or illegal, (2006) 5 SCC 340-G

Corporate Laws

Companies Act, 1956

— Ss. 46 and 48 — Deed executed on behalf of Company — Binding effect — Held, it is the Company and not the persons signing who can sue or be sued on the contract if the evidence is clear that signature was only that of the Company, (2006) 5 SCC 340-H

Corporate Laws

Companies Act, 1956

— S. 48 — Affixation of seal of Company — Nature and scope of requirement — Held, even in the absence of a seal, Company may still be held to be liable having regard to nature of transaction and authority of those who had executed it — If act of Directors is not ultra vires or no public policy is involved, parties acting thereupon cannot be left at large, (2006) 5 SCC 340-I