Similarly, an agreement to pay money to the parent/guardian of a minor in return for his or her consent to give minors marriage is void, as it is contrary to public order. Example: obtaining a loan from a bank by mortgaging certain goods to the bank as collateral. Subsequently, it was found that the products had either been fraudulently overvalued or withdrawn in consultation with bankers. A agreed to fill the gap by giving more products than collateral in the form of securitisation. But there has been some delay in the hyptheting of goods. The bank therefore filed a complaint. However, the complaint was withdrawn by the bank at the end of the mortgage. In this respect, the default compensation agreement was valid because the compromise agreement was concluded before a complaint was filed. An agreement in which a party agrees to drop criminal proceedings pending in court for a certain amount of money is illegal.

Therefore, such an agreement can only be applied if an infringement is not yet possible. An agreement to restrict the marriage of a person other than a minor is null and void. The law does not require everyone to marry. But if a person agrees not to marry at all, it goes against public order and is therefore not valid. In addition, an agreement by which a person undertakes not to marry a particular person is also either, as it opposes public order Figure 1: A person “A” is convicted of murder. His friend “P” goes to the judge to make an agreement to put “A” in order. The same agreement is not concluded. In England, both agreements are illegal and unenforceable. However, in India, only agreements that appear to have been entered into for gambling purposes in litigation and to violate or repress others by promoting ungodly disputes are not implemented, but not all maintenance and champerty agreements. Example: A obtained a loan from B, a money lender, and agreed with B that, without B`s written consent, he would not leave his job or borrow money, sell his property, or change residence. It was found that the agreement was inconclusive.

Courts should be very careful when ruling on a matter of public policy. Teaching must be applied with the necessary variation. Each case must be decided on the basis of its own facts. Some of the agreements contrary to public policy are briefly explained below with the help of examples. These are agreements that prohibit, in whole or in part, any party to any part of the agreement from asserting its rights with respect to a contract that is so invalid. In the event of an agreement reached by a person by which he is obliged to do something that is his public duty, the agreement of the order is not concluded. . . .

Comments are closed.