There is no legal obligation under Indian law to use good beliefs when negotiating the treaty. As in the common law, it is not common in Indian law to be in good faith in the usual contract negotiations. Nevertheless, we see the nuclear arena as a problem-free implementation of freely agreed commitments. They completely exclude limited and binding contracts from the corpus of contractual practice and create special niches for them, such as in labour law and in the regulation of benefits. While we accept that contract law stems from public decisions on the agreements to be implemented, we affirm that the overriding public decision is to respect and execute private intentions. The validity of these electronic agreements is maintained by Section 10A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (« IT Act ») and section 85A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Information Technology Act does not require the performance of a physical copy of the contract, unless such a clause is a mandatory provision of the contract for it to enter into force. However, some reservations remain about the validity of transactions and documents relating to substantive issues within the meaning of the first timetable of the Information Technology Act. Given the above, it may not be fair to interpret in an abstract way that the law was rewritten or watered down in Saw Pipes to Kailash Nath. This is all the more true since Kailash Nath himself acknowledges that « in cases where damage or loss are difficult or impossible, the liquidated amount mentioned in the contract can be awarded if a real estimate of the damage or damage can be attributed. » In 2010, a single judge of the Delhi Supreme Court considered whether contractual clauses can exclude a person from the claim for damages that he or she can otherwise invoke by law, i.e. whether the parties can enter into contracts under section 73 of the Contracts Act.  In this case, the court considered a clause in a state construction contract.
which prohibited the contracting contractor from granting compensation when work was delayed and the completion period was extended due to certain cases beyond the contractor`s control. The court was faced with two conflicting supreme court decisions, which were of the same clause. In the first decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the clause in question would exclude the contractor`s right to damages in addition to the extension of the delay completion period.  In the other, the Supreme Court found that the clause prevented only the division (the employer`s competent authority) from awarding damages, but would not prevent an arbitrator from awarding damages that would otherwise be payable by the employer because of its breach.  In the Bharathi Knitting Company v. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd, the Supreme Court considered a clause that limited a courier company`s liability for loss or damage to a shipment under conditions printed on a car letter for the shipment of a package. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which limited the amount awarded to the shipper for performance failure to the amount set out in the liability limitation clause. The Tribunal found that parties who sign documents subject to contractual terms are normally bound by such a contract and rejected the allegation that there was no consensus among the parties on the limitation of liability, as the National Commission found that the sender had signed the car letter. In addition, Section 48 of the Registration Act, 1908, provides that all non-will documents duly registered under this Act, relating to personal or real property, take effect against any order, arrangement or declaration concerning that property, unless the agreement or declaration was accompanied or shipped with the property.