Abstract

Indian Contract Act, section 28, talks about agreements made in restriction of legal proceedings being null. Basically it says that any such agreement that prohibits the parties from bringing a lawsuit to protect their rights is null and void to the extent it restricts them from bringing a lawsuit. In this section, however, there are two exceptions to the rule.” Only the first exception is discussed here. A contract between two or more parties whereby they agree that any dispute that may arise between them in respect of any subject or class of subjects shall be referred to arbitration, and that only the amount awarded in such arbitration shall be recoverable for the dispute so referred, is exempt from the provisions of the first exception. It can also be noted that arbitration is one of the possibilities supplied by the ICA to the parties. A double benefit is achieved. One being the hassle of going to courts and litigation can be avoided and secondly, this also reduces the burden on the courts.” When we look into the scope of this exception, it can be said that when the agreement between the parties provided that whatever award the arbitrators give shall be acceptable to them in every way without objection, it was held that the agreement could not be relied upon to shut objection even on the ground of misconduct to the arbitrators. However, this section does not apply to cases where there is no absolute restraint against enforcing the rights. Through this paper the author will be analysing the nature and objective of Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, and the restrictive clauses included herein. This section of the ICA purposes to enforcement of the agreements in view of those clauses which restrict one party from having their rights enforced in the court of law and also to analyse agreements restricting law of limitations.

Keywords