COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)
GOPAL SRI RAM, J, HELILIAH BT MOHD YUSOF, J, AHMAD BIN HAJI MAAROP, JJCA
Sentul Raya Sdn Bhd – Appellant
Versus
Hariram al Jayaram and Others – Respondent
ORAL JUDGMENT
This is the Judgment of the Court.
There are 10 appeals before us today. They all give rise to common issues. In four of them there are cross appeals. We have heard a single argument from either side in all the appeals as well as the cross appeals. The relevant facts are as follows.
The appellant is a housing developer. Its activities are controlled and regulated by the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966
Before us, learned counsel for the appellant raised four grounds in support of the appeals. We will deal with each of them in turn. The first point is based on section 56(3) Contracts Act 1950
(1)When a party to a contract promises to do a certain thing at or before a specified time, or certain things at or before specified times, and fails to do any such thing at or before the specified time, the contract, or so much of it as has not been performed, becomes voidable at the option of the promisee, if the intention of the parties was that time should be of the essence of the contract.
Effect of failure when time is not essential
(2)If it was not the intention of the parties that time should be of the essence of the contract, the contract
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.