In the common law, a common sense test is followed. An agreement to restrict trade is valid: in this case, two similar entrepreneurs have entered into an agreement as part of a partnership so that only one of their factories operates at a time and the profits are shared between them. This reluctance was considered valid. Some agreements are unenforceable in court because they are contrary to public policy and the public interest. Such agreements are not illegal, they can still be concluded, but they are unenforceable in court. In other words, if one of the parties to the agreement does not fulfil its obligations in such an agreement, the injured party cannot bring the case before a court of competent jurisdiction to assert its rights. Agreements to restrict trade, marriage and legal proceedings are examples of such agreements. 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. Under Article 28, an agreement limiting the period within which a Contracting Party may assert its rights is, in this respect, unconstitutional.
Consequently, under that provision, an agreement providing that an action for breach of an agreement must be brought within a shorter period than that provided for by the Law on limitation period is therefore annulling. Such an agreement has the absolute effect of preventing the parties from asserting their rights after the expiry of the period laid down in the contract, even if it may fall within the limitation period prescribed by the statute of limitations. However, such an agreement must be distinguished from those which do not limit the period within which a party may enforce its right, but provide for the release or forfeiture of rights in the absence of an appeal within the time limit set by the agreement. There are certain conditions that validate a trade restriction during the sale of goods: a contract concluded by the parties is called an international commercial contract and clause 13 of the agreement provides for a unilateral agreement by which the sellers alone would have the right to refer any dispute to arbitration and to bring any legal action against the buyers before each competent court. This clause, which has the character of a unilateral agreement preventing the complaining buyer from imposing the rights of the contract, either by arbitration or by an ordinary civil court, is, under section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, amended by the addition of 1996 – Emmsons International Ltd. v. metal distributors (U.K.) [5]. The original text of section 28 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872, which announcing agreements to limit legal proceedings (or contain clauses), has undergone many changes over the years.
. . .