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. The difference between maintenance agreements and champerty chords lies in their purpose. The purpose of the maintenance contract is to encourage or fuel litigation, whereas in the Champerty agreement, this shares the proceeds of the dispute. It should be noted at this stage that, although an agreement for marriage is inconclusive, the marriage will be a valid marriage. Example: A and B were rival traders in a locality of Calcutta. B agreed to pay A, a sum if he closed his store there. To do so, but B refused to pay him the money. The agreement was not reached, so the money could not be recovered. 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 Subsequently, it turned out that the goods were either fraudulently overvalued or withdrawn in agreement with bank employees.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 However, the complaint was withdrawn by the bank after the assumption was closed.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. In this case, the specific provision of the Indian Contracts Act in question sets out in detail the objectives that could be achieved under the conclusion of a contract. These provisions are clear and detailed and have been commented on over the years by forensic experts in several precedents. However, the “Against Public Order” segment continues to create a blurring area in determining whether or not a contract is illegal. As mentioned in some cases, public order is generally interpreted as something for the common good; However, its definition changes with the circumstances. Therefore, the interpretation of this provision is not uniform and concrete.

It must be based on the situation, which is sometimes largely based on opinions. Such opinions are subjective and depend on how a particular person analyzes a particular situation. This creates an ambiguous and worrying situation for policy makers. In simple terms, pubic policy refers to the policy of the government for the good of society, It can also be said that if an agreement against a developed interest of society or morals of the time, it can be said that against public order and the agreement will be considered invalid. It was held that an agreement could not be applied if it was contrary to the public interest [ii] or contrary to general legal policy. In the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of Idnia[iv], the Supreme Court has held that the concept of public order is open to amendments and enlargement This provision is not based on the ground or reasons that might apply to parties to illegal contracts. In the case of Neminath v.

Jamboorao, the court put forward three fundamental principles on which Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act is based.