With respect to Section 28 of the Contracts Act, there is no doubt that this section does not have enforcement agreements that extend the limitation period. Such an agreement, which extends the statute of limitations, contrary to what is provided for by the statute of limitations, would be null and void under section 23 of the Contracts Act, as it would have the effect of countering the provisions of the statute of limitations – Jawaharlal v. Mathura Prasad.  Section 3 of the Statute on Prescription makes it clear that any appeal under a statutory limitation period is rejected, while the statute of limitations is not provided for as a defence. In this case, two similar contractors have agreed in partnership that only one of their plants will operate at the same time and that the profits be distributed among them. This deduction has been validated. (a) A, in Bombay, enters into a contract with B in Madras provided that all disputes are referred to the Bombay court. This limits B`s right to take legal action in Bombay Court in the event of a dispute. Such an agreement is valid. b) If two courts have jurisdiction over the appeal and the parties agree that the appeal is brought only before one of those courts, such a provision is valid.
(c) agreements that do not limit the time it takes to enforce rights, but simply provide that failure to perform within the time frame is considered to be the release or forfeiture of those rights between the parties. In this case, Thorsten Nordenfelt was a weapons manufacturer in Sweden and England. Thorsten sold his business to a company, which then sold the business to Maxim Nordenfelt. At that time, Thorsten entered into an agreement with Maxim that he would not engage in the manufacture of weapons for 25 years, except what he produced on behalf of the company. Thorsten later broke his vows and said the agreement was unenforceable because he challenged the trade restriction. The court`s decision was made by Thorsten on the back foot. (a) by a party who participates in the exercise of his rights, within the framework or in relation to a contract, is absolutely imposed by the usual judicial proceedings, or limits the time within which it can assert its rights; Or 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 not enforceable in court.