An agreement concluded for the purpose of defrauding creditors or tax authorities is not applicable because it is a matter of public policy. No agreement contrary to “public policy” may be applied by either party. Public policy is the “politics of the 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. Example: A and B were rival traders in a place in Calcutta. B agreed to pay A a sum of money if he closed his store there. A did, but B refused to pay him the money. The agreement is void and therefore it is not possible to recover money. The duty must be done. Therefore, such agreements should also increase corruption and inefficiency among public officials. Therefore, such agreements are inconclusive. Agreements that tend to create monopolies are contrary to public policy and are therefore invalid.

However, in areas such as vegetables, monopoly rights may be granted to a person who excludes others. If, in an agreement, the counterparty commits an offence, the agreement is contrary to public policy and is not in conformity with public policy. Similarly, an agreement to exempt a person from the consequences of his criminal act is not applicable, as it recognizes public order. A undertakes to pay rule 500 to a municipal engineer for not reporting unauthorized work to municipal authorities. The agreement is inconclusive, as it creates interest against the obligation. 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 outlawed since it is contrary to public policy in Veerayya v. Sobhanandri[vii] a person who entered into an agreement to withdraw the 1860 charge from the Indian Penal Code against the accused. It was found that, since the infringement was cumulative, authorisation from the General Court is required and that, consequently, the agreement was annulled.

In the case of Ouseph Poulo v La Banque catholique Ag [viii], two parties also concluded an agreement to close the criminal proceedings against a given counterparty, finding that this type of transaction was intended for public order. 4 AGREEMENTS AGAINST PUBLIC ORDERGoce with the enemy Suffocating repression Maintenance and trafficking of champerty in the context of public functions Agreement creating interests against the obligation of matrimonial agreement Agreement creating a monopoly agreement to influence elections to the public offer Agreement limiting the agreement of personal freedom on interference with marital obligations 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. 10 IMPACT OF TRANSACTIONS GUARANTEED FOR WAGERA betting contract only invalid and not illegal, a guarantee contract may be imposed by law. COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS AND PARIS The intention to bet must be on the part of both parties. If only one of the parties to the agreement intended that the agreement should be for the payment of disputes and the other party did not realize this, the agreement is enforceable. LOTTERY: – If a betting transaction boils down to a lottery, it is illegal and punishable under Section 294-A of the Indian Penal Code. BETTING AND INSURANCE CONTRACTS An insurance contract is not a bet, although it is feasible in the event of an uncertain event. This is due to the fact that the parties have an interest in it in the contract. . .

.