An agreement in restraint of legal proceedings is void. It does not cover an agreement which :a)Cuts short the period of limitationb)Restricts absolutely the parties from enforcing their legal rightsc)Discharges a party from liability or extinguishes the rights of a partyd)Provides for a reference to arbitration instead of court of lawCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Question

Answer

Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, void

11[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 contract, by which two or more persons agree that any dispute which may arise between them in respect of any subject or class of subject shall be referred to arbitration, and that only the amount awarded in such arbitration shall be recoverable in respect of the dispute so referred . 12[* * *]

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.

Answer

Arbitration matlab ek intermediary jise dono parties ne mutually appoint kiya hai to agar aise arbitration se matter sulajh jata hai to vo restraint in legal proceding nahi hai

Answer

A. Introduction

In contract law, an agreement in restraint of legal proceedings is generally considered void. However, there are certain exceptions to this rule. In this scenario, we need to determine which exception is not covered by the void rule.

B. Restraint of Legal Proceedings

Restraint of legal proceedings refers to any agreement that restricts or prevents parties from initiating legal action to enforce their rights. Such agreements are generally considered against public policy, as they hinder access to justice and the resolution of legal disputes.

C. Exceptions to Void Rule

1. Cuts short the period of limitation: This exception refers to an agreement that reduces the time within which a party can bring a legal action. For example, if the usual limitation period for a particular claim is three years, the parties may agree to reduce it to two years. This exception is valid and enforceable as it does not completely restrain legal proceedings but merely shortens the time frame for initiating them.

2. Restricts absolutely the parties from enforcing their legal rights: This exception refers to an agreement that completely prohibits the parties from pursuing any legal action to enforce their rights. For instance, if two parties agree not to sue each other under any circumstances, it would fall under this exception. Such agreements are generally void as they undermine the principle of access to justice.

3. Discharges a party from liability or extinguishes the rights of a party: This exception relates to an agreement that releases a party from any legal liability or extinguishes their rights. For example, if a debtor agrees with a creditor to discharge their debt in exchange for giving up their rights to sue for any related claims, it would fall under this exception. Such agreements are generally void as they compromise the rights of the parties involved.

4. Provides for a reference to arbitration instead of court of law: This exception refers to an agreement that stipulates arbitration as the method for resolving disputes instead of going to court. Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism where parties submit their disputes to an independent arbitrator(s) for a binding decision. Unlike the previous exceptions, agreements for arbitration instead of legal proceedings are generally valid and enforceable. Arbitration is a recognized and accepted means of resolving disputes, and parties willingly submit to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator(s) by entering into such agreements.

D. Conclusion

In conclusion, the exception that is not covered by the void rule relating to agreements in restraint of legal proceedings is the one that provides for a reference to arbitration instead of going to court. Arbitration agreements are generally valid and enforceable as they offer an alternative means of resolving disputes outside of traditional court proceedings.

Answer

It is a well known rule of the English law that “an agreement purporting to oust the jurisdiction of the courts is illegal and void on grounds of public policy.” Thus, any clause in an agreement providing that neither party shall have the right to enforce the agreement by legal proceedings is void. Agreements stipulating no intention to contract or a gentleman’s agreement which is an agreement that relies upon the honour of the parties for its fulfilment, rather than being in anyway enforceable by law is not in violation of s.28.

Top Courses for CA FoundationView all

Quantitative Aptitude for CA Foundation

Business Economics for CA Foundation

Mock Tests & Past Year Papers for CA Foundation

How to Prepare for CA Foundation

Business Laws for CA Foundation

Top Courses for CA Foundation

Top Courses for CA Foundation

Related Content

CA Foundation Courses

Other Courses

How To Prepare?

Other Exams

Company