Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“the Act”), clarifies three matters, for example, the consideration of an agreement, the purpose of the contract, and the actual agreement. Article 23 imposes restrictions on individual freedoms by entering into agreements and places the rights of such persons in the higher concepts of public policy and the other provisions mentioned under it. 

The Word “Object” used in Section 23 indicates and implies “purpose” and does not mean significance in the same sense as “consideration“. Therefore, unless the consideration of the agreement may be legal and valid, that will not prevent the contract from being invalid if the purpose of the agreement is invalid. Section 23 limits the courts as the section may be guided by thought or motive, for the purpose of exchange or transaction is basically not for reasons leading to equality. Although the consideration is provided under Section 2 (d) 1 of the Act, no official definition of the word ‘object’ exists. An “object” can better be understood as the “purpose” or “design” of a contract. Thus, when a loan is taken under a contract for the purpose of marriage, in that case, the marriage is the purpose of the contract.

Lawful Object and Lawful Consideration– Section 23 Order .The purpose or consideration of an agreement is absolutely valid unless it falls into any of the categories provided below-

•  It is forbidden by the Law
• A consideration or object violation of the provision of Law
• Deceptive thoughts or something
• A consideration or object includes an injury to a person or property
• The court considers it immoral
• The consideration or intent is contrary to public policy Trading with enemy

If the contract’s goal or the consideration it includes is legally prohibited, there is no legal justification for objecting to it. They then inevitably become illegitimate. As a result, the agreement will no longer be valid. Acts that are expressly prohibited by law are included in the category of illegal consideration of an object. This comprises those who are formally in charge of establishing laws and regulations. However, it will not function if the regulations imposed by such bodies do not adhere to the law.

example.     A licensed Department of Forestry for cutting local grass. Departmental officials told him he could not pass such an interest on to anyone else. But the Forest Law does not have that law. So A sold his interest in B and the contract was held legally.

A Consideration or Object Violation of the Provision of Law

In other words, if the contractor seeks to subvert the intent of the law. The stated contract will be void if the courts determine that the parties’ true motivation was to avoid the legal requirements. Give the example of A and B entering into a contract, where A is the debtor and B refuses to accept a limit. However, this is done to undermine the Restrictions Act’s goals so that the contract could be declared void by the courts for violating the law.

Deceptive Thoughts or Something

A legitimate consideration or object can never be deceptive. Agreements entered into that contain the presumption of illicit fraud or material misconduct. Suppose that A decides to sell goods to B and smuggles them out of the country. This is false work as it is useless. Now B cannot reimburse under the law if A does not fulfill his promise.

 A Consideration or Object includes an Injury to a Person or Property

In this case, the word injury refers to acts of violence, harassment, coercion, assault, etc. An assault agreement, for example, falls under this section. Thus, when X borrowed Rupees 1000 from Y and made a bond promising to work for Y without pay for two years and in the event of any failure allowed to pay high interest on the principal amount, the contract was held in vain. as it involved the injury of someone in the contract. 

The Court considers it ImmoralThe term “immorality”

 is often translated in conjunction with the norms and definitions of the Courts. The Supreme Court has given a limited definition of the word “immorality” and has interpreted it as a strong reference to “forms of sexual immorality”. Thus, betting agreements cannot be considered immoral. Explaining the scope of the Gherulal Parakh v Mahadeodas AIR 1959 SC 781, the Supreme Court cited certain agreements in which the consideration or object was immoral: the promise of marriage for consideration, a contract for the sale of goods for the prostitute to continue her work, a contract. facilitating divorce, future settlement agreement, etc. A good example of an agreement that facilitates divorce is when a person, X, gives Y to Y with the promise that Y will divorce Z, and later marry X. Here if Y does not separate from Z, A cannot continue legal action against him. Y refund. The very nature of this contract is immoral and will therefore be regarded as null and void. 

The Consideration or Intent is Contrary to Public Policy

The word ‘enforce’ is broad in scope and is governed by precursors. In the case of Ratanchand Hirachand v Askar Nawaz Jung AIR 1976 AP 112 , the Court defined the definition of “public policy” as the development of the public good on the one hand and the prevention of public evil on the other. When the marriage was dissolved on the condition that the wife would not claim maintenance or maintenance money but later the wife applied for maintenance, the Court held that the terms of the divorce would not prevent the court from granting maintenance as this right was part of it. of a larger “right to life” and would be against public policy to seize it. Thus, anything that harms the public interest or the welfare of the community falls under this category. However, it is not possible to provide a complete list of assumptions against public policy. It varies from time to time. 

Trading with Enemy

An agreement made during the conflict with an unidentified adversary without the Indian government’s approval is illegitimate since it goes against civil policy. A commercial embargo and a ban on interactions with enemy citizens result from the declaration of war. The hostile world’s damaging trade is inherent to war itself.

Conclusion   

It is impossible to overstate the value of respect and legitimacy in a successful agreement. The agreement is null and void if both the object and the consideration are unlawful. We acknowledge that our efforts to pursue our rights under this Agreement in a court of law will be futile until further notice unless our Agreement is subject to the requirements of Sections 10, 23, and 24 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. This is due to the fact that a covenant like that would not be considered sacrosanct by the law. Therefore, we must be very careful when entering into agreements to guarantee that they are not merely “agreements,” but rather that they comply with the law’s standards so that in the case of a collision, we will be protected.