Agreement Opposed To Public Policy In Indian Law

The question whether or not an agreement is contrary to public policy must be transsible only on the basis of general principles and not by taking into account contractual conditions. Agreements with voters to obtain their votes against a financial counterpart or with third parties to influence voters are invalid because they are contrary to public order. It is an agreement in which either party or third party receives a certain amount of money against marriage. Such agreements, which are in favour of public order, are inexigable. An agreement on creditor fraud is contrary to public policy and not an agreement. The difference between maintenance agreements and champerty agreements lies in their purpose. The purpose of the maintenance contract is to promote or stir up disputes, while the same, in the Champerty agreement, is to share the proceeds of the dispute. 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. Figure 2: A person “A” is convicted of murder and “B” is the witness.

If an agreement is made with “B” to change his testimony / not appear in court, it is illegal and not airy. In simple terms, Pubic Policy refers to the government`s policy for the well-being of society, It can also be said that if an agreement violates a developed interest of society or the morality of the time, it is contrary to public order and the agreement turns out to be inconclusive. It has been found that an agreement cannot be enforced if it is contrary to the public good[ii] or if it is contrary to the general policy of the law[iii]. In P. Rathinam v. .

Comments are closed.