… The offence is not committed by initio as contrary to public order and by Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and therefore such an agreement is unenforceable… Her husband agreed with this course, especially given the intimate relationship between the parties. As a result, the transaction is not considered by Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.11 That`s right. Apex.16. In accordance with Section 23 of the Contracts Act, the consideration or subject of a … k) A agrees to have his daughter hired for concubines on B. The agreement is subject to nullity because it is immoral, although the rental cannot be punishable under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). 5] If it is a violation of another person or property, a violation is a misdemeanor and a damaging offence imposed on another person. Therefore, if the purpose or consideration of the contract harms another person or property, it provides an illegal consideration. Suppose a contract to publish a book that constitutes a violation of another person`s copyright would not be valid. The consideration here is illegal and violates the property of another person, that is, his copyright. The Supreme Court of India has dealt with certain Section 23 cases that find certain contract negotiations to be cancelled.
In «ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd.» 21 With respect to the interpretation of the importance of «public order» in this case, the Hon`ble Court indicated that several authorities had repeatedly indicated that the term «public order» did not allow for precise definition and could vary from generation to generation and from time to time. Therefore, the term «public order» is considered vague, sensitive to a narrow sense or broader depending on the context in which it is used. It was therefore decided that the term «public order» should have a broader meaning. Hon`ble Court applied for Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Anr. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Anr. [(1986) IILLJ 171 SC] found that what is good for the public or in the public interest or that would be harmful or detrimental to the public interest or the public interest varies from time to time. However, an arbitral award that is clearly contrary to the law cannot be characterized as a public interest.