eCourtsIndia
IndiaCode Laws
Section28
The Indian Contract Act, 1872

Agreements in restraint of legal proceeding void

In force From 01 Sep 1872 Act 9 of 1872 As on 14 Oct 2026

Act 9 of 1872 Ministry Law and Justice Enacted 25 Apr 1872 In force 01 Sep 1872

Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 deals with agreements in restraint of legal proceeding void. 1 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; The Act came into force on 01 Sep 1872.

1 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 the extent.

Exception 1.—Saving of contract to refer to arbitration dispute that may arise.—This section shall not render illegal a contract, by which two or more persons agree that any dispute which may arise between them in respect of any subject or class of subjects shall be referred to arbitration, and that only the amount awarded in such arbitration shall be recoverable in respect of the dispute so referred.

2 * * * * *

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 arbitration3.

4 Exception 3.—Saving of a guarantee agreement of a bank or a financial institution.—This section shall not render illegal a contract in writing by which any bank or financial institution stipulate a term in a guarantee or any agreement making a provision for guarantee for extinguishment of the rights or discharge of any party thereto from any liability under or in respect of such guarantee or agreement on the expiry of a specified period which is not less than one year from the date of occurring or non-occurring of a specified event for extinguishment or discharge of such party from the said liability.

Explanation.—(i) In Exception 3, the expression "bank" means—

(a) a "banking company" as defined in clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949);

(b) "a corresponding new bank" as defined in clause (da) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949);

(c) "State Bank of India" constituted under section 3 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955);

(d) "a subsidiary bank" as defined in clause (k) of section 2 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 (38 of 1959);

(e) "a Regional Rural Bank" established under section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976);

(f) "a Co-operative Bank" as defrined in clause (cci) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949);

(g) "a multi-State co-operative bank" as defined in clause (cciiia) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949); and

(ii) In Exception 3, the expression "a financial institution" means any public financial institution within the meaning of section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956).

Section 28, The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Act 9 of 1872).

Cross-references

Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.

This section refers to

  1. Regional Rural Banks Act s. 3 Establishment and incorporation of Regional Rural Banks
  2. State Bank of India Act s. 3 Establishment of the State Bank

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

  1. Interglobe Aviation Ltd. v. N. Satchidanand

    Supreme Court of India 04 Jul 2011 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable (2011) 7 SCC 463

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    Judgment of Main Case order-6.pdf 2011-07-04. CA 4925/2011. Raveendran/Patnaik. DATE-CHECK flagged 2009-12-31 HC / 2009-09-18 PLA / 2007-12-14 flight dates (false positive); body is the named 4 Jul 2011 reportable. An exclusive-jurisdiction clause ('courts at Delhi only') is void under Contract Act s.28 if it ousts all competent courts or confers jurisdiction on a court that lacks it. A Permanent Lok Adalat is not a 'court' for that clause. Do not pad the Legal Services Authorities Act.

    On this section: An exclusive-jurisdiction clause is void under s.28 if it ousts all competent courts or confers jurisdiction on a court without it; a Permanent Lok Adalat is not a 'court' (Interglobe).

    Read the full order on eCourts India

  2. Amazon. Com Nv Investment Holdings LLC vs Future Coupons Private Limited

    Supreme Court of India 06 Aug 2021 Landmark Binding Precedent at Apex Court Level Reportable (2021) 8 SCC 1

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    Full party autonomy is given by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to have a dispute decided in accordance with institutional rules which can include Emergency Arbitrators delivering interim orders, described as 'awards'. Such orders are an important step in aid of decongesting the civil courts and affording expeditious interim relief to the parties. Such orders are referable to and are made under Section 17(1) of the Arbitration Act. Additionally, no appeal lies under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act against an order of enforcement of an Emergency Arbitrator's order made under Section 17(2) of the Act, as Section 37 provides an exhaustive code for appeals from orders under the Arbitration Act, and the legal fiction created by Section 17(2) is limited to enforcement purposes only and does not extend to appellate jurisdiction.

    On this section: Court rejects argument that ouster provisions narrowly constrain arbitration, noting that Arbitration Act, 1996 reverses ouster principle by favoring arbitration

    Read the full order on eCourts India

  3. P. Manohar Reddy & Bros vs Maharashtra Krishna Valley Dev. CORP

    Supreme Court of India 18 Dec 2008 Binding (SC) - Landmark Precedent Reportable

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    An arbitration clause in a contract must be interpreted strictly according to its language and scope. Where the arbitration clause, by its own terms, requires a claim for extra work to be raised and processed through specified procedures during the contract tenure, claims raised after contract completion and acceptance of final bill without reservation fall outside the scope of the arbitration agreement and cannot be referred to arbitration. The doctrine of separability of arbitration clause from the principal contract, while accepted in modern law, does not override the fundamental temporal and procedural limitations explicitly embedded within the arbitration clause itself. Therefore, a court considering an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 must first determine whether the dispute in question falls within the defined scope of the arbitration agreement; if it does not, no arbitrator can be appointed, and the court has no jurisdiction to compel arbitration.

    On this section: Prohibition of clauses for limiting period of liability; contractual limitation periods for raising claims not invalid if reasonable and within statutory limitation

    Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.

Questions about Section 28

What have the courts held on Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act?

Interglobe Aviation Ltd. v. N. Satchidanand (04 Jul 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: An exclusive-jurisdiction clause is void under s.28 if it ousts all competent courts or confers jurisdiction on a court without it; a Permanent Lok Adalat is not a 'court' (Interglobe). Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2021.

How do I find court cases under Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act?

In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Contract Act 28, section 28 Contract Act, section 28 of the Indian Contract Act. People searching for it also type indian contract act 28. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Interglobe Aviation Ltd. v. N. Satchidanand (04 Jul 2011).

What should I read with Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, and has it changed?

Its own text turns on Regional Rural Banks Act 3 (Establishment and incorporation of Regional Rural Banks), State Bank of India Act 3 (Establishment of the State Bank), so none of them can safely be read on its own.

When did Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act come into force?

Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, cited as Contract Act 28, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 25 Apr 1872. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.

Other sections of this Act

Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.