https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279206 Where time was contractually essential, the bidder could not treat a without-prejudice letter expressing willingness to consider further relaxation as a binding waiver or bilateral extension of the payment deadline. The analysis states that specific performance or refund could not be claimed on that footing, and that cancellation was not invalid for want of a fresh date. It also notes that Rule 24 of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules 1981 was inapplicable because the land was not Nazul land, and that res judicata failed since the earlier writ was dismissed for non-maintainability. Earnest money forfeiture was nevertheless treated as permissible under the contract upon breach. en-us Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Mar 2019 16:30:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279206 Where time was contractually essential, the bidder could not treat a without-prejudice letter expressing willingness to consider further relaxation as a binding waiver or bilateral extension of the payment deadline. The analysis states that specific performance or refund could not be claimed on that footing, and that cancellation was not invalid for want of a fresh date. It also notes that Rule 24 of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules 1981 was inapplicable because the land was not Nazul land, and that res judicata failed since the earlier writ was dismissed for non-maintainability. Earnest money forfeiture was nevertheless treated as permissible under the contract upon breach. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279206