This section does not enter into any written contract by which a bank or financial institution establishes a clause in a guarantee or agreement guaranteeing the exercise of the rights or performance of the rights of a party or the discharge of such a party of such a guarantee or agreement at the end of a specified period which cannot be less than one year from the date of the cancellation or dismissal of that party. Section 27 of the Act mentions only one exception that attests to the restriction of trade, i.e. the sale of good s or goodie. Another exception is the Partnership Act. The Lowe v. case. Peers set a precedent in the Marriage Limitation Act. In this case, the accused stated that if he married someone other than the complainant, he would give him 1000 pounds within three months of his marriage. It was decided that such an agreement was a null and void. In Vulcan Insurance Co. Ltd v.

Maharaj Singh[1], the Supreme Court held that a clause in an insurance policy that the insurer is not liable for losses if the claim is claimed 12 months after the damage is null and for all, since it only provides for the right obtained by the contract to a party, to algiabilize and not to invoke the loss of section 28 of the contract. This new provision, which does not provide for retroactive effect, would not make this decision a good law from the date of the amendment`s effectiveness. In this context, another Supreme Court decision may be considered. The Partnership Act of 1932 provides another exception to the rule limiting trade restriction agreements. There are three exceptions in the law. With respect to Section 28 of the Contracts Act, there is no doubt that this section does not have enforcement agreements that extend the limitation period. Such an agreement, which extends the statute of limitations, contrary to what is provided for by the statute of limitations, would be null and void under section 23 of the Contracts Act, as it would have the effect of countering the provisions of the statute of limitations – Jawaharlal v. Mathura Prasad. [9] Section 3 of the Statute on Prescription makes it clear that any appeal under a statutory limitation period is rejected, while the statute of limitations is not provided for as a defence. 1[]Any agreement by which each party by which it is a party does not assert its rights in the context or in relation to a contract in the context of the usual court proceedings, or which limits the time within which it can thus assert its rights, is therefore null and void. 28.

Agreements to restrict the judicial procedure, annulled In this case, Thorsten Nordenfelt was a manufacturer of arms in Sweden and England. Thorsten sold his business to a company, which then sold the business to Maxim Nordenfelt. At that time, Thorsten entered into an agreement with Maxim that he would not engage in the manufacture of weapons for 25 years, except what he produced on behalf of the company.