If the purpose or consideration of an agreement is unethical, it is cancelled. The following examples would help to better understand the point. The counterparties and illicit goods are: for example, the production or sale of excised goods is prohibited by the excise law, except in the case of a state license. The sale of unlicensed spirits is therefore prohibited by the Excise Act and is therefore illegal. A contract entered into in violation of a legal prohibition is null and void, whether it is an explicit or implied prohibition. In summary, all agreements that involve a violation of laws protecting or promoting the public interest are invalid. On the basis of the above, it is easy to understand that the scope and scope of Section 23 are important and that, therefore, the applicability of its provisions is subject to careful consideration by the Tribunal of the recital and purpose of an agreement and the agreement itself. Therefore, in order to introduce a case within the scope of Section 23, it must be shown that the purpose of the agreement or the review of the agreement or agreement itself is illegal. The ordinary task of the courts is to rely on well-established public policy chiefs and apply them to different situations. For example, A, the CEO of a company, agrees to award a contract to B if the latter pays rs 5,000 to the former. The agreement tends to create an interest against bonds and is non-hazard because of the trade in public functions. The words “if they are allowed to destroy the legal provisions” must be interpreted as referring to the implementation of an agreement that necessarily results in the overstay of the provisions of a statute. The general rule of law, as applied by the courts, is based on the exception of the maxim modus and conventio vincunt legem11.
In other words, if the explicit provisions of a law are violated by a contract, the interests of the parties or third parties would be affected by their performance. The contracting parties have the power to settle their rights and undertakings themselves and the Tribunal only takes into force the intention of the parties as set out in the contract, in accordance with the laws of the country in force. The California Court of Appeals for the Third District refused to execute an agreement on the payment of debt notes used to acquire the organization of the drugs and similar products. Although the items sold were not in fact illegal, the court refused to comply with the agreement on public policy grounds. If a single consideration of one or more objects or one or more of the considerations of a single object is illegal, the agreement is not valid. The concept of public order in the broadest sense implies a restriction on the freedom of persons to do something in the best interests or for the good of the Community. Under india`s Contracts Act, it limits contractual freedom in certain areas that undermine public order. An agreement is a non-endorsement if the law considers it in opposition to public order. 3. In Re: K.L. Gauba (23.04.1954 – BOMHC) [AIR 1954 Bom 478].
Para 11: “… The freedom of the citizen, as well as the freedom of the lawyer to enter into a contract, is always subject to the public order imperatives as expressed in page 23 of the Indian Contract Act. This freedom is also subject to the other considerations of the S.