Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian contract act 1872 section 28 agreements in restraint of legal proceedings void Court: delhi Page 1 of about 118 results (0.090 seconds)

Jes & Ben Groupo Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs.hell Energy Magyarorzag Kft. (Hel ...

Court : Delhi

..... of the high court, therefore, that clause 9 of the facilitation deed is opposed to public policy and is void under sections 23 and 28 of the indian contract act, 1872 is clearly erroneous." 13. the plaintiffs have laid much emphasis on the allegations of fraud and i.a. 8948/2019 in cs(comm) 257/2019 page ..... challenged the validity of the arbitration agreement on the ground that it is contrary to the public policy of india. in view of section 28 of the indian contract act, 1872, the agreement is void and the arbitration agreement is wrongfully supportive in favour of the defendants in terms of geography, language and laws and the same cannot ..... invites evaluation of the grounds urged by the plaintiffs in opposition to the application. plaintiffs counsel referring to section 28 of the indian contract act, 1872 contended that the law does not allow parties to make contracts whereby they bargain in advance, the right not to resort to the courts for the protection of their rights and determination .....

D.D.a Vs. Pandit Construction Co.

Court : Delhi

..... two issues are required to be reflected upon by us in the instant appeal. the first issue relates to the applicability of section 28 of the indian contract act 1872, post amendment vide act no.1 of 1997 with effect from january 08, 1997 and the second issue relates to the plea raised by the appellant before the learned arbitrator ..... 90 days of receipt of information of the bill being ready for payment. 7. with effect from january 08, 1997, as amended by act no.1 of 1997, section 28 of the indian contract act, 1872 reads as under:- 28. agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, void every agreement, (a) by which any party thereto is restricted ..... absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the .....

Union of India Vs. Pt. Munshi Ram and Associates Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Delhi

..... order dated 1st may 2010, the learned arbitrator observed that in view of section 28(b) of the indian contract act, 1872 (ca) an amendment agreement in restraint of legal proceedings contrary to the mandate of article 137 of the limitation act, 1963 (la) would be void and any clause extinguishing the right of a party or discharging any party ..... appellant candidly admitted that the amendment had been made but had thereafter been repealed and the matter would, thus, have to be examined under section 28 of the contract act, as originally placed. in fact, there has been no repeal of the amendment. it was wrongly informed by learned counsel for the appellant in that case that ..... from its liability in respect of the contract on expiry of a specific period, so as to restrict the time period would be .....

Rajendra Sethia Vs. Punjab National Bank

Court : Delhi

Reported in : AIR1991Delhi285; 1991RLR179

..... andhra pradesh high court in the black sea steamship u . l . lastochkina odessa, u.s.s.r. v. union of india, : air1976ap103 , which was rendered on section 28 of the contract act, 1872. in this case condition 26 in the agreement between the parties was as under:'all claims and disputes arising under and in connection with this bill of lading shall be ..... again in turn floated jokai tea holdings limited holding 100% shares. as noted above, all these companies are registered in london. jokai tea holdings limited owned 74% shares in an indian company called jokai (india) limited. both essal commodities and shadreed limited went into liquidation.5. p.n.b. was having office in london where it was conducting banking business. essal .....

Tomorrow Land Technologies Exports Limited vs.hudco & Anr

Court : Delhi

..... . interjeet singh 2011 scc online del 473 held, (a) that under section 21 of the indian contract act, 1872, a contract is not voidable because it was caused by a mistake as to any law in force in india; similarly, under section 22, a ..... referred the matter of cs(os) 1551/2005 page 8 of 9 interest to the court, is, under section 20 of the indian evidence act, 1872, bound by the decision of the court and merely because a wrong step has been taken by the plaintiff does not entitle the ..... by consent, the court adds its mandate to the consent; (iii) that a consent decree is composed of, both, a command and a contract; (iv) that by passing a decree in terms of a consent order, the court authorises and approves the course of action consented to; and ..... has the imprimatur of the court and crystallises into a decree, in my view, it is not open to a party to then contract out .14. as far back as in shankar sitaram sontakke vs. balkrishna sitaram sontakke air1954sc352 it was held that once a compromise .....

Sunita Gupta Vs. Inderjeet Singh and anr.

Court : Delhi

..... and thus redundant.f. that such modification is fair in the facts and circumstances.8. section 21 of the indian contract act, 1872 provides that a contract is not voidable because it was caused by a mistake as to any law in force in india. similarly under section 22 ..... any of the terms of the compromise were unlawful so as to void the contract. the applicants/are seeking modification of the compromise on the grounda. that the servant quarters-cum-toilet as existing have also not been ..... court in accepting the compromise and in passing a decree in terms thereof, confers the said agreement with the status of a lawful contract. it is not the case of the applicants that the finding of this court of the compromise being lawful is incorrect or that ..... of the act a contract is not voidable merely because it was caused by one of the parties to it being under a mistake as .....

M/S Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Engineers Project India Ltd

Court : Delhi

..... shall bind the parties finally and conclusively , is violative of article 28 of the indian contract act, 1872 as it restrains legal proceedings.12. the question whether parties could exclude the application of arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 (hereafter a&c act ) by agreement was considered by a division bench of this court in ircon international ..... , is violative of the section 28 of the indian contract act being in restraint of legal proceedings and also faling foul of the settled legal proposition that one cannot contract out of the statute [ i.e. arbitration and conciliation act]. thus, even according to sail, a&c act would be applicable to arbitration proceedings under the pma ..... jugde set aside the award of the committee on the ground that the award of the committee did not conform to the scheme of the indian arbitration act, 1899. the order of single judge was challenged before division bench wherein justice buckland in its concluding para held as under: the procedure whereby .....

National Highways Authority India Vs. Mecon-gea Energy Systems India L ...

Court : Delhi

..... of the right itself, unless exercised within the specified time, was permissible and can be enforced.43. after the 1997 amendment to section 28 of the indian contract act, 1872, not only the curtailment of the period of limitation is void, but also the extinction of right, if sought to be brought by the agreement within a ..... specific period, which period is less than the period of limitation prescribed for the suit under the contract in question, is also rendered void. in other words, after the amendment to section 28 of the indian contract act, 1872 by act 1 of 1997, the distinction between curtailing of the period of limitation and extinction of the right itself ..... the case of shri j.k. anand v. delhi development authority (supra) the learned single judge of this court applied the section 28 of the indian contract act in relation to arbitration clause which restricted the contractor to demand the claim by way of arbitration within 90 days of the intimation from the engineer in charge .....

Pandit Construction Company Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2007(3)ARBLR205(Delhi); 2007(98)DRJ96

..... there can be such limitation of a period of 90 days in view of the provisions of section 28(b) of the indian contract act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the said act) read with article 137 of the limitation act, 1963.14. learned counsel for respondent no. 1, to support the conclusion arrived at by the learned arbitrator, relied ..... effect seeks to curtail the period of limitation and prescribes a shorter period than that prescribed by law would be void as offending section 28 of the contract act. that is because such an agreement would seek to restrict the party from enforcing his right in court after the period prescribed under the agreement expires even ..... held that an agreement which curtails the period of limitation and prescribes a shorter period than prescribed by law would be void as offending section 28 of the contract act. this was so because such an agreement would seek to restrict a party from enforcing his right in court after the period prescribed under the agreement expires .....

Delhi Tourism & Transportation vs.gammon India Limited

Court : Delhi

..... 25 was duly complied with, even if, the claim was not preferred within 120 days but was within three years, which per section 28(a) of the indian contract act, was perfectly justified.45. a perusal of award would reveal the arbitral tribunal has examined all the documents placed on record, appreciated the evidence led by the ..... . since the preliminary objections raised by... respondents have not been found to be sustainable, the matter is decided on merits as follows. 33. section 28 of the indian contract act, is also relevant in the context and it read:-" 28 agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, void. every agreement, omp no.510/2015 page 16 of 23 ..... respect of these claims. clause 25 inasmuch as it extinguishes claims, much before the prescribed period of limitation under the limitation act, is void as per section 28 of the contract act, 1872, as amended. this issue being no longer res integra. omp no.510/2015 page 17 of 23 36. in hindustan construction corporation vs delhi .....