Indian Contract Act — Section 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 time within which he may thus enforce his rights; or (b) which extinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto, from any liability,. under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of a specified period so as to restrict any party from enforcing his rights, is void to that extent. Exception 1.—Saving of contract to refer to arbitration dispute that may arise.— This section shall not render illegal a contract, by which two or more persons agree that any dispute which 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 in respect of the dispute so referred. Exception 2.—Saving of contract to refer questions that have already arisen.— Nor shall this section render illegal any contract in writing, by which two or more persons agree to refer to arbitration any question between them which has already arisen, or affect any provision of any law in force for the time being as to references to arbitration.L Exception 3.—Saving of a guarantee agreement of a bank or a financial institution.— This section shall not render illegal a contract in writing by which any bank or financial institution stipulate a term in a guarantee or any agreement making a provision for guarantee for extinguishment of the rights or discharge of any party thereto from any liability under or in respect of such guarantee or agreement on the expiry of a specified period which is not less than one year from the date of occurring or non-occurring of a specified event for extinguishment or discharge of such party from the said liability. (a) Explanation.— (i) In Exception 3, the expression "bank" means—a "banking company" as defined in clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949). (b) "a corresponding new bank" as defined in clause (da) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949); (c) "State Bank of India" constituted under section 3 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955); (d) "a subsidiary bank" as defined in clause (k) of section 2 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 (38 of 1959); (e) "a Regional Rural Bank" established under section 3 of the Reg, tonal Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976); (f) "a Co-operative Bank" as defined in clause (cci) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949); (g) "a multi-State co-operative bank" as defined in clause (cciiia) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949); and (ii) In Exception 3, the expression 'a financial institution" means any Public financial institution within the meaning of section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956).
Follow cited cases · Browse courts and years · Research topics
Judgments citing Section 28
- M/S TECHNO STEEL AND CRAFT INDUSTRIES AND ANR v. THE UNION OF INDIA & Ors.
- Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Ramakrishna Electr
- Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Ramakrishna Electr
- HAFSA BEGUM MAZUMDER AND ANR v. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, APDCL & Ors.
- SHIVAM CORPORATION INDIA v. GEM SALES CORPORATION
- INDIA AHEAD NEWS PVT LTD v. DEON NETWORKS PVT LTD & Ors.
- (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) v. M/s J.A. Brothers
- AMAR KIRTI MEHTA v. NORTHERN RAILWAY & ANR
- M/s JSW ISPAT STEEL LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS JSW STEEL LIMITED) v. M/S GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED
- MULTI COMMODITY EXCHANGE OF INDIA LIMITED v. RAJESH EXPORTS LTD
- ANSAL HOUSING LIMITED v. SS INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD
- ANSAL HOUSING LIMITED v. SS INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.
- MEENA BAZAAR v. MOHAMMED AMIN ABUBAKER
- C. Velusamy v. K Indhera
- M/s. Sowil Limited v. Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Bhusawal
- JINDAL COKE LIMITED v. HIMADRI SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LIMITED
- Indian Institute of Technology, Mandi (Kamand), H.P. v. Central Public Works Department & Ors.
- No. 165 of 2025 1 - Maa Bhagwati Construction, A Partnership Firm v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan & Ors.
- ALFA COTEC INDUSTRIES v. SYNCHRONIZED SUPPLY SYSTEMS LIMITED & ORS.
- GHAFOOR AHMED & ORS v. SABILA & ORS
Text reproduced from the public statutes on which the corpus is built. Verify against the official Gazette before relying on it. This is statute reference, not legal advice.