“The meaning of time is essence is that the parties have agreed to perform at a

given time agreed in a contract and shall not extend the specified time in a
contract. In case a contract does not expressly provide this phrase then in that
case time is not the essence of a contract.”
“In real estate sector, time is the essence of a contract when the parties have
expressly intended to include it in the terms of a contract. Thus, it shows the
intention of the parties to contract to consider “time is the essence” a
significant term of the contract.”
“However, in case a contract becomes voidable on account of the promisor’s
failure to perform his promise at the time agreed, the promisee accepts
performance of such promise at any time other than that agreed, the promisee
cannot claim compensation for any loss suffered by the non-performance of
the promise at the time agreed, unless, at the time of such acceptance he gives
notice to the promisor of his intention to do so.

Thus, if the parties do not expressly illustrate any intention to make time is the
essence of contract then the promisee is not entitled to claim compensation on
loss incurred due to promisor’s failure to perform his obligations as per
contract.”

“In Indian law the question whether or not time is of the essence of the contract
would essentially be a question of the intention of the parties which are to be
gathered from the terms of the contract. An express stipulation in this matter
cannot be a conclusive determination of the intention of the parties. If the contract
in its terms provides that time is the essence of the contract, but other terms of the
agreement show that the parties did not intend time to be of the essence, the court
has held that time is not of the essence. The intention of the parties can be
ascertained from:
(a) The express words used in the contract;
(b) The nature of the contract itself;
(c) The nature of the property which forms the subject matter of the contract;
(d) The surrounding circumstances.”

“ In the case of State of Kerala v. M.A Mathai , it was held that if there are any
delays in the performance of reciprocal obligations by an employer, the contractor
gets the right to avoid the contract but if he does not avoid the contract and accepts
the belated performance, he cannot claim compensation for any loss sustained to
him due to delay in performance, unless he gives a notice of the same to the
delaying party.”

“When time is not of the essence:

Time is not of the essence where the contract provides for damages for delayed
completion, or for extension of time in certain circumstances, despite express
provision making time of the essence, or provision of a default clause. These
provisions are inconsistent with the intention to make time of essence. Time was
not of essence where the time for performance was extended twice and the
object of a purchase was not a commercial undertaking.
Time is not of the essence when the contract did not specify a date for the
completion, but merely provided for completion to take place as soon as
reasonably expected. A party’s general right to have the contract performed within
reasonable time is unaffected by the fact of time not being of the essence.”