One of the essential conditions for the conclusion of the contract is that it must not be void. Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act states that “all agreements are contracts. which are not expressly cancelled”. A contract may be void for several reasons, for example: in this case, the Supreme Court concluded that Article 27 expressly null and voided all agreements (with some exceptions) and that it was not possible to attribute two meanings to the section. The acceptability check in force in England cannot be applied in India. In this case, the parties were businessmen in Calcutta. The defendant Rajcoomar suffered a loss as a result of the applicant`s competition and entered into an agreement with the claimant that, if he closed his business there, he would pay him all the advances he had paid to his employees. Where the defendant did not pay, the applicant brought an action to recover the amount, but did not do so because it was a trade restriction which was therefore not applicable in the courts. Exception 1: the storage of the contract relating to the relationship of arbitration disputes that may arise: this section does not result in an unlawful contract wherein two or more persons agree that any dispute that may arise between them in respect of a subject or class of subjects will be referred to arbitration and that only the amount awarded in such arbitration proceedings is recoverable in respect of what is known as litigation.
12[* * *] Thus, on reading the two aforementioned supreme court decisions, there seems to be some agitation with respect to section 28 (b) of the Act, which results in immeasurable inconvenience for the many unfortunate people who enter into standard form contracts with absolutely no bargaining power. This agitation can be interpreted in a way that is close to the contractual rights of citizens. It would therefore be wise to avoid any general regime of limitation clauses and to leave the examination of these clauses in the context of the legislation. The provisions of the Statute of Limitations are based on public policy and, where a contract for the limitation period or reduction of the limitation period is concluded, such a contract, contrary to the provisions of the Statute of Limitations, should be interpreted in such a way that it complies with the principles of public policy. Such a clause would then be taken by section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. Therefore, such a provision should be regarded as effective in a contract, such a provision in a contract, a limitation period or a reduction in the limitation period, and even if such a provision exists, provision should be made for the possibility of bringing an action within the limitation period prescribed by the statute of limitations.  Some agreements are simply detrimental to society. . . .