If the object or consideration of an agreement is the performance of an act prohibited by law, the agreement is null and void. Acts or obligations prohibited by law are those punishable by law, as well as those prohibited (expressly or implicitly) by special acts of Parliament and state legislators. « . There are exceptional cases where a man is released from the consequences of an illegal contract in which he has concluded, cases in which the maxim does not apply. They are divided into three classes: (a) if the illegal proposal essentially entered into force before an attempt was made to recover the sums paid or the goods delivered or delivered to promote it; (b) where the plaintiff is not on an equal footing with the defendant; (c) where the applicant does not have to rely on illegality in order to assert his claim`. The usual task of the courts is to draw on the well-established minds of public order and apply them to different situations. For example, A, the manager of a company, agrees to give a contract to B if he pays a sum of Rs 5,000 to the former privately. The agreement tends to lead to an interest in exchange for an obligation and is void because of the trade of the civil service. 17. Relevant illustrations of Article 23: (e) A, B and C enter into an agreement on the sharing between them of the profits acquired or to be acquired by them by fraud. The agreement is void because its purpose is illegal. (g) A, acting as a representative of a landowner, undertakes, in exchange for money, without the knowledge of his client, to obtain for B a lease of land belonging to his client.
The agreement between A and B is void because it involves fraud by concealing its customer by A. Although the object or consideration of an agreement, sometimes not directly prohibited by law, they are always prohibited if they naturally deny the purpose of the legal provision. Consent to such an object or consideration is void. If a legislative decree provides for a sanction for an act or promise, the execution of such a law or promise would amount to the defeat of that decree, since it is implicit that the law intends to prohibit that act. Example 2: A agrees to let her daughter go to B as a concubine. The agreement is void because it is immoral, although renting may not be punishable under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). The consideration and objectives that are illegal are as follows: the concept of public policy in the broad sense means the restriction of the freedom of persons to do something in the best interests or in the interests of the community. Under the Indian Contracts Act, it restricts the freedom of individuals to enter into contracts in certain areas that are prejudicial to public order. An agreement is void if the law considers it contrary to public order. In accordance with the provisions of Article 23, any agreement involving a breach of a person or property of a third party shall be void and shall not be enforceable in court, and therefore no claim for breach of such unlawful agreement shall be acceptable. Contract law defines « consideration » as the answer to the question: « How do you benefit from entering into this contract? » Both sides must be taken into consideration for the fact that the agreement is legally binding.
For example, if you buy a jacket at your favorite store, the garment is the consideration you receive, while your payment is the consideration received from the store. Section 23 of the Indian Contracts Act clearly states that consideration or the object of a contract is considered consideration or a valid object and, if not, the object and consideration are deemed illegal. The words mentioned in article 23 « if permitted, it would nullify the legal provisions » should be understood as referring to the performance of a contract which necessarily entails a breach of the provisions of a law. The general rule of law, as followed by the courts, is based on an exception to the Maxim modus et conventio vincunt legem11. This means that in the event of a breach of the express provision of a law by a contract, the interests of the parties or third parties would be prejudiced by their performance. The parties to a contract may govern their own rights and obligations, and the court will only implement the intention of the parties as expressed in the contract in accordance with the applicable laws of the country. 2. Section 23 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872 – What considerations and sections are lawful and what is not The consideration or the subject matter of an agreement is lawful unless prohibited by law; or is of such a nature that, if authorized, it would nullify the provisions of a statute; or fraudulent; or involves or implies a violation of someone else`s person or property; or the Court considers them immoral or contrary to public policy. In each of these cases, the consideration or the object of an agreement is considered illegal. Any agreement whose object or consideration is illegal is null and void.
The above principle was followed by the Honorable Supreme Court of India in Gherulal Parekh v. Mahadevdas Maiya19, with the Honourable Justice Subba Rao, referring to Lord Atkin`s observation, stating: « . Public order or the politics of the law is an illustrative concept. He has been described as an « untrustworthy leader », a « variable quality », an « unruly horse », etc.; The main task of a court is to execute a promise made by the parties and to maintain the sanctity of the contract that forms the basis of the company, but in some cases the court may exempt it from its duty to a rule based on what is called public order. For lack of better words. Lord Atkin describes that something that goes against public order is a harmful thing; but the doctrine is not only extended to prejudicial cases; but also to harmful trends. It is governed by precedents. The principles emerged under different headings. Although the heads are not closed and although it may be allowed orally to develop a new head in the exceptional circumstances of the changing world, in the interest of the stability of society, it is advisable not to try to discover new minds nowadays. In Kedar Nath Motani v. Prahlad Rai,20 the honourable court held that « the correct opinion in the law … is that it is necessary to see whether the illegality goes so much to the root of the case that the plaintiff cannot bring his action without relying on the illegal transaction in which he concluded.
If the illegality is trivial or venial.. and the plaintiff is not obliged to base his argument on this illegality, then public policy requires that the defendant not be allowed to exploit the position. Of course, the conduct of the applicant must be strictly taken into account and must not circumvent illegality by reverting to cunning or distorting the facts. However, if the case is clear and illegality does not need to be invoked or proven in the plea and the plaintiff withdrew before the illegal objective was achieved, the defendant`s plea should not prevail unless it is of such a gross nature that it violates the conscience of the court. Sometimes a contract is cancelled by the court because it is not taken into account. This usually happens when: 11. the form of the agreement and the agreement of the parties prevail over the law Any agreement that involves or implies a violation of persons or other property is considered illegal and therefore void. Some types of contracts are only valid in writing, such as .B. Real estate transactions or contracts with a duration of more than 12 months.
.
