An Agreement Opposed To Public Policy

An agreement with the intention of defrauding creditors or tax authorities is not applicable, as it is contrary to public policy. Agreements on the use of the influence of corruption in obtaining government jobs, titles or honours are illegal and therefore unenforceable. Indeed, if such agreements are valid, corruption will increase and lead to the inefficiency of public services. Example: one of them obtained a loan from a bank by mortgaged certain goods with a bank as collateral. Subsequently, it turned out that the goods were either fraudulently overvalued or withdrawn in agreement with bank employees. Agreed to remedy the shortage by giving more goods than security in the form of assumptions. But there has been some delay in the commodity hypothesis. The bank filed a complaint. However, the complaint was withdrawn by the bank after the assumption was closed. The agreement on catch-up applications applied because the compromise agreement had been reached prior to the filing of a complaint. Two types of agreements are dealt with under this head. They are – An agreement to restrict the marriage of a person who is not a minor is non-ae.

The law does not require everyone to marry. But if someone agrees not to marry at all, it is contrary to public order and therefore not abundant. Moreover, an agreement in which a person agrees not to marry a particular person is as irrelevant as it is contrary to public policy. If an agreement is reached with “B” to change his testimony / not appear in court, it is illegal and not aeig. It is the agreements that completely or partially prohibit a contracting party from asserting its rights to a contract are null and void in this regard. It is an agreement in which one or the other party or a third party receives a certain amount of money in return for the marriage. Such agreements, which oppose public order, have no effect. In the case of Veerayya v. Sobhanandri[vii], a person reached an agreement to withdraw the charge of S. 420 from the Indian Penal Code in 1860 against the accused. As the offence has been aggravated, the Tribunal`s agreement is necessary and the agreement has therefore been annulled.

In the case of Ouseph Poulo/Catholic Union Bank Ltd. [viii], two parties reached an agreement to terminate the criminal proceedings under some consideration and it was determined that such transactions were contrary to public policy. Example 2: An agreement with B because of their divorce and marriage to A. Hero was abortive. Neither party is in a position to impose an agreement that opposes “public policies.” Public policy is the “politics of law.” Whether an agreement is contrary to public policy or not must be decided solely on the basis of general principles and not on the terms of a particular contract. Agreements on the use of the influence of corruption in obtaining government jobs, titles or honours are illegal and therefore unenforceable. If such agreements are valid, corruption will increase and lead to the inefficiency of public services. An agreement is not considered legal if it is contrary to public policy. The doctrine of public order is based on the maxim “ex turpi causa non oritur actio,” meaning that an agreement against public order would have no effect. The term “public order” does not have a complete definition of its fluctuating nature and is highly uncertain. The interpretation of public order is left to the discretion of the Tribunal. Nor can contractual clauses be enforced if they have been agreed by both parties when they are contrary to public policy.

Comments are closed.