Introduction
In the world of today, where usually everything is executed while adhering to strict timelines, it has become all the more necessary for the parties to a contract to specify the time for its performance. It is thus generally expected that either of the party to such a contract will perform its obligation within the time frame stipulated in their contract. However, that is not the case every time and for every such contract. Such non-adherence may be caused due to several factors and can lead to damages being incurred by either party to the contract. Hence, from the legal point of view, regarding the adherence of the time frame stipulated in the contract, the question arises as to what the effect of such non-adherence upon the contract is. Further, legal issues also arise regarding the liability of the party who has breached such a time frame, and whether such time frame can be extended, or even waived off. The answer to all legal issues can be found in the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“ICA 1872”), which generally governs the law of contracts executed within India, and such other contracts which have been mutually decided to be governed by the ICA 1872. Within the various provisions of ICA 1872, the concept of adherence of a time frame, or a time limit, mentioned in the contract, is known as ‘Time is the essence of the contract’, and is governed by Section 55 of ICA 1872 (“Section 55”). We shall now look into detail, the concept of Time of the Essence in the law of contract, and find answers to various legal issue: 

Meaning
Time being the essence of contract is an important concept under the ICA 1872. It refers to the stipulation of a specific time period within which a contractual obligation must be performed by the party to the contract, who has been imposed with such a covenant. In such cases, any delay in the performance of the contractual obligation beyond the stipulated time can lead to a breach of contract. Section 55 thus defines the legal provisions surrounding the time being the essence of the contract and states that if a specific time is mentioned in a contract for the performance of an act, it must be performed within that time or the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party entitled to the performance of the act. It further provides that if a party fails to perform the act within the stipulated time, the other party is entitled to claim compensation for any loss suffered as a result of the delay. The said provisions reads as follows:
55. Effect of failure to perform at fixed time, in contract in which time is essential. - 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 such failure when time is not essential. - If it was not the intention of the parties that time should be of the essence of the contract, the contract does not become voidable by the failure to do such thing at or before the specified time; but the promisee is entitled to compensation from the promisor for any loss occasioned to him by such failure. 
Effect of acceptance of performance at time other than that agreed upon. - If, in case of a contract 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 occasioned 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.
Upon reading, the said Section 55 brings clarity regarding when under what circumstances, the time is considered to be the essence of the contract.

Element of Intention
According to Section 55, if the intention of the parties was that time should be the essence of the contract, then a failure to perform at the agreed time renders the contract voidable at the option of the other party(ies) to the contract. Time, is thus, generally considered to be of the essence of the contract in the following three cases:
(1) Where the parties have expressly agreed to treat it as of the essence of the contract; or
(2) Where delay operates as an injury; or
(3) Where the nature and necessity of the contract requires it to be so construed. For example, where in a contract, a party asks for extension of time for performance, such request for extension will be considered to indicate that the time is of the essence of the contract. [1] if the time was not of the essence of the contract, the party obligated to adhere to the time frame need not have asked for extension of time. [2] However, unless the contract prescribes a time for performance, there is no question of any particular moment of time being regarded as of the essence of the contract. [3] Further, it is also to be noted that a contract containing provisions for extension of time in certain circumstances often has the effect of reducing the value of time of performance. [4]

Effect and Consequences
If the contract specifies a particular time for performance, it would be considered an essential term of the contract. Any delay in performance beyond the stipulated time would be deemed a breach of contract, and the other party would be entitled to terminate the contract and claim damages. [5] Any delay in performance beyond the stipulated time would be considered a breach of contract. But, if the contract does not specifically mention time as the essence, then a delay in performance would not necessarily amount to a breach of contract. [6] Further, Where delay is due to the conduct of the party who has to supply material, penalty for delay cannot be imposed. [7]
When a contract specifies a deadline for the delivery of goods, time is of the essence, and the buyer can reject the goods and claim damages if the delivery is not made within the specified time. [8] If a contract specifies a deadline for the payment of the consideration, time is of the essence, and the seller can terminate the contract if the payment is not made within the specified time. [9]

Conclusion
In conclusion, the concept of time being the essence of the contract is an important aspect of contract law in India. It emphasises the importance of timely performance of contractual obligations, and failure to comply with the specified time can lead to a breach of the contract. Parties to a contract must ensure that the time of performance is clearly stated, and they must strictly adhere to the timelines specified in the contract.
In conclusion, the concept of time being the essence of the contract is an important aspect of contract law in India. The Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides clear legal provisions regarding the same in Section 55. The various landmark cases discussed above help to provide clarity on the interpretation and application of Section 55. Parties to a contract must be mindful of the importance of timely performance of their obligations to avoid legal disputes and breaches of contract.
When time is of the essence of a contract, parties are obligated to ensure timely performance of their obligations. Any delay in the performance of the contractual obligations can lead to serious legal consequences, including the termination of the contract and the payment of damages. Therefore, it is important for parties to ensure that the time of performance is clearly specified in the contract and that they strictly adhere to the timelines mentioned.

References:
[1] R. K. Prasad J, Orissa Textile Mills Ltd v. Ganesh Das [AIR 1961 Pat 107]
[2] Colles Cranes of India Ltd v. Speedeo Spares Corpn [AIR 1970 Cal 321]
[3] D.S. Thimmappa v Siddaramakka [(1996) 8 SCC 365]
[4] Abdul Khader v. Plantation Corpn of Kerala Ltd., [1982 KLT 928]
[5] Maula Bux v. Union of India [1970 SCR (1) 928]; Union of India v. Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram [AIR 1969 SC 78]; Alopi Prashad v. Union of India [AIR 1960 SC 588]; Ram Chand v. Union of India (1966); Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain (2010); Larsen & Toubro Limited v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board (2011); Jyoti Structures Ltd. v. KMC Constructions Ltd. (2012).
[6] Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Das [AIR 1963 SC 1405]
[7] ONGC v. S.S. Agarwalla & Co. [AIR 1984 Gau 11]
[8] Union of India v. Bhimsen Walaiti Ram [(1960)]; Aircon Agencies v. Union of India (2006)
[9] Shashi Prakash Khemka v. NEPC Micon Ltd. [(2000)]