8. April 2021
To define illicit agreements in their most fundamental form, they are seen as agreements that violate existing laws in this area and are criminal in nature. Agreements that are immoral and oppose public order also fall into the category of illegal agreements. Under the Indian Contract Act, there is another term for void agreements. In this area, there is a frequent misunderstanding that assumes that the notions of emptiness and irregular agreements overlap. But that is not the case. There are considerable differences between the two in terms of nature and even consequences. If the consideration or purpose of the agreement is illegal, it is „fraudulent“ in the eyes of the law. However, the court observed some exceptions in different precedents and focused on different occasions on the expression pacta convent quae neque contra leges neque dolo mall inita sunt omnimodo observanda sunt. Any contract entered into by the parties must be fair to both parties to a transaction and must not put any of them in an unfair position with respect to the transactions in question and the performance of the contract.
The overall objective of the assessment is to prevent those who act unlawfully from profiting from their own faults and from the civil law remaining in accordance with criminal law. Unlike an illegal agreement, an agreement in vain can be defined as an agreement that is not legally binding. Such agreements do not apply in the eyes of the law because they do not bind the parties to rights or obligations. No transaction related to a no agreement is considered valid and effective. Agreements can be cancelled at the outset, i.e. cancelled from the outset; or may be invalidated at a later date after losing their enforcement power as a result of an act committed during the duration of the performance. Illegal agreements are illegal from the start and are punishable in the eyes of the law. On the other hand, non-binding contracts are agreements for which the contract is considered (legally) to have existed, but no recourse is granted. The treaty remains in force. Trade restriction agreements can be implemented if they are appropriate. If an ex-employee is subject to deference, the court will consider geographic boundaries, what the worker knows and the extent of the length of time. Deference to a business seller must be appropriate and binding where there is a true quality-will label.
Under common law, price-fixing contracts are legal. Single delivery agreements („Solus“) are legal if reasonable. Contracts contrary to public policy are non-issue. In addition to Section 23, Section 24 also mentions illegal contracts under the Indian Contracts Act. Under this provision, contracts with considerations or objects, some of which are illegal, are considered illegal.