An Agreement In Restraint Of Legal Proceedings Is Void

coordinat / Uncategorized / / 0 Comments / Like this

In this case, two similar contractors have agreed in partnership that only one of their plants will operate at the same time and that the profits be distributed among them. This deduction has been validated. Undoubtedly, if the parties have agreed on a particular forum, the courts will apply the agreement. This is not because its own jurisdiction is not lacking or discarded because of a judicial decision built on another Court, but because the Court will not be involved in a breach of an agreement. Such an agreement is not contrary to public policy or contrary to Section 28 or Section 23 of the Contracts Act. This was done to Jakkam Singh vs.M/s. Gammon (India) Ltd., AIR 1971 SC 740; A.B.C. Lamt. Ltd. vs. A. P. Agencies, (1989) 2 SCC 163 and Modi Entertainment Network vs.

W. S. G. Cricket Pte. Ltd., (2003) 4 CSC 341, 351. The decision of the Delhi Supreme Court of Rajendra Sethia against Punjab National Bank, AIR 1991 del. 285, on which the Commission is based, which implements the opposite, is therefore clearly wrong. Man Roland Druckimachinen AG Vs Multicolour Offset Ltd. and another [SC 2004 APRIL] The original text of Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which was adopted (or contained clauses) to restrict court proceedings, has been amended several times over the years. Indeed, in 1997, the original Section 28 was replaced by a new one after the recommendations of the 97th report of the Indian Legal Commission were taken into account.

The amendments made by the 1997 amendment caused much discontent on the part of banks and financial institutions in that the amendment prevented them from including clauses, for example in a bank guarantee (or similar agreement) that destroys the rights of a party to sue it. An attempt to resolve this problem was made in 2013, when the Bank Act (amendment law) introduced in 2012, with exception 3 in Section 28, a savings clause for a guarantee agreement of a bank or financial institution. But a look at this 2013 change, while aimed at protecting banks and financial institutions, shows that instead of solving problems, it can add conditions that should worry many banks and financial institutions. The purpose of this article is to take a closer look at these issues and conditions.