Armin Hohenadler

Shalini has an office supplies and book shop in a village of Bareilly. A Zahida person plans to open his store with similar goods in the same place. Fearing competition in the market, Shalini reached an agreement with Zahida not to open its operations in the region for 15 years and promised, in return, to pay him a certain amount of money each month. Thereafter, Shalini will not pay the agreed amount. Zahida is trying to take the case to court. The agreement is not concluded, Zahida has no case. The clause in the agreement that the claimant would not be entitled to the loan at the expiry of six months from the date of termination of the contract was considered not to be contrary to section 28 of the Act and did not limit the appeal within six months; Food Corporation of India v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1994 SC 1896. Exception,2: Storage of the contract for referral of questions already asked: this section also does not make illegal a written contract by which two or more persons agree to refer to arbitration any question that has already arisen between them or to infringe a provision of a law on references to arbitration in force at the moment. However, under section 23 of the Act, an agreement extending the limitation period for the enforcement of rights, although it is not covered by this section, as it intends to circumvent the provisions of the Limitations Act 1963.

Under section 27 of the Act, an agreement to restrict trade is not in accordance with section 27 of the Act. In other words, any agreement that prevents a person from starting or continuing his profession against a paid counterparty is nullity. Therefore, any agreement that prevents a person from acting as he wishes or where he wishes is considered an agreement with another party in which the other party benefits from the cessation of his trade or profession as an agreement to restrict trade. With the exception of two exceptions that we will discuss below, all trade restriction agreements are enxigated. Both exceptions are provided for in the Law on the Sale of Business Property or Companies and the Law on Partnership. However, if a clause in the policy provides that if the appeal is not lodged within one year of the rejection of the right, all the benefits of the policy expire, is valid. This is explained by the fact that the agreement does not consist in limiting the time, but in waiving the right that no appeal has been lodged within that period. Article 28 does not violate Article 28. A reduction of the limitation period is not permitted, but the extinguishment of the right itself, unless it is exercised within a specified period, is permissible and may be applied. But an agreement that waives the remedy by providing that, where an appeal must be brought within the time limit, it is shorter than the limitation period provided for in the Statute of Limitations, is concluded by section 28. .

.