Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Public Policy and Agreement Validity - Agreements tending to be injurious to public interest, public good, or against statutory law are liable to be invalidated on grounds of public policy. For instance, agreements in restraint of trade or that waive legal rights contrary to public policy are deemed void. The courts emphasize that public policy concerns the public good and interest, and agreements opposing these are unenforceable. Bharatbhai Ramjibhai Rathod VS Deputy Executive Engineer, Khambhat Irrigation Sub Division - Gujarat, Pradeep Yashwant Nagrale VS Vyankanna Laxmanna - Bombay
Consideration and Public Policy - The law stipulates that the object or consideration of an agreement must be lawful and not opposed to public policy. When consideration is unlawful or the agreement's object violates statutory provisions or public interest, the agreement is void from inception. The Indian Contract Act (Section 23) highlights that agreements with unlawful consideration or object are invalid. The scope of public policy is broad and not precisely defined, but it generally relates to matters concerning public good, morality, and statutory compliance. Vijaya Bank VS Prashant B Narnaware - Supreme Court, Pradeep Yashwant Nagrale VS Vyankanna Laxmanna - Bombay
Recovery of Public Demands and Public Policy - Statutory provisions create specific procedures for the recovery of public demands, emphasizing the importance of expeditious recovery for public interest. Breaches related to public contracts are typically considered civil matters, and courts recognize the necessity of procedures aligned with legislative intent to serve the public interest. Pawapuri Rice Mills VS Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. - Supreme Court
Public Policy in Arbitration and Court Decisions - Courts scrutinize whether awards or agreements violate the fundamental policy of Indian law or public policy. The phrase public policy of India is interpreted to encompass the fundamental legal principles that concern public interest. Grounds such as fraud, corruption, or contravention of statutory law are recognized as violations of public policy that can justify setting aside awards. However, courts avoid interfering with arbitration awards unless clear violations of public policy are established. National Highways Authority of India VS Patel Knr Heavy Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - Delhi, Sree Durga Estates VS J. A. S. Padmaja W/o J. Venkata Ramudu - Telangana, Aiims VS S. S. Total Construction India Pvt. Ltd. - Delhi, South City Projects (Kolkata) Limited VS Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority - Calcutta
Main Insights - The recovery of consideration or enforcement of agreements against public policy is invalid when such agreements are unlawful, immoral, or against statutory law. The courts focus on whether the agreement's object or consideration promotes the public good or contravenes fundamental legal principles. The concept of public policy is broad, encompassing morality, legality, and statutory compliance, and is primarily aimed at safeguarding public interest. When agreements or awards violate these principles, they are deemed void or liable to be set aside.
References:- Bharatbhai Ramjibhai Rathod VS Deputy Executive Engineer, Khambhat Irrigation Sub Division - Gujarat- Pawapuri Rice Mills VS Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. - Supreme Court- National Highways Authority of India VS Patel Knr Heavy Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - Delhi- GPE (India) Ltd VS Twarit Consultancy Services Private Limited - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 102 - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 102- Vijaya Bank VS Prashant B Narnaware - Supreme Court- Sree Durga Estates VS J. A. S. Padmaja W/o J. Venkata Ramudu - Telangana- Aiims VS S. S. Total Construction India Pvt. Ltd. - Delhi- South City Projects (Kolkata) Limited VS Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority - Calcutta- Batliboi Environmental Engineers Limited VS Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited - 2023 Supreme(SC) 986 - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 986- Pradeep Yashwant Nagrale VS Vyankanna Laxmanna - Bombay
In the realm of contract law, not all agreements hold legal weight. Imagine entering into a deal that seems profitable at first glance, only to discover it clashes with societal norms or legal standards. This brings us to a critical question: Judgement on Agreement against Public Policy—are such agreements enforceable, and can parties recover any consideration paid?
Under Indian law, agreements opposed to public policy are typically rendered void, leaving parties without legal recourse. This blog post delves into Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, judicial interpretations, and practical implications, drawing from key legal precedents. Note: This is general information and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Public policy serves as a safeguard for public good, morality, and statutory compliance. Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act explicitly states that the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful unless it is forbidden by law, defeats any law, is fraudulent, involves injury to person or property, or is immoral or opposed to public policy. Agreements falling into these categories are void ab initio—meaning they have no legal effect from the start. Gurmukh Singh VS Amar Singh - 1991 0 Supreme(SC) 163
As highlighted in legal discourse, Any agreement which tends to be injurious to public or against the public good is invalidated on the grounds of public policy. Rockline Construction Company, Mumbai VS Doha Bank, Mumbai - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 2217 - 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 2217J. K. Panthaki & Co. , Bangalore, Represented by its Partner, Neville Panthaki VS Income Tax Officer - 2010 Supreme(Kar) 848 - 2010 0 Supreme(Kar) 848 The question of whether an agreement contravenes public policy is a matter of law, determined by applying prior decisions and principles. Courts emphasize that public policy concerns the public good and public interest. Batliboi Environmental Engineers Limited VS Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 986
If the object or consideration of an agreement would defeat the provisions of any law, and if it is against the public policy, the agreement will be treated as unlawful and void. K. P. Abdul Hakeem @ Manu, S/o Late Kunhami VS Asmabi M P, D/o Late Moideen - 2023 Supreme(Ker) 43 - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 43Vikraman Nair S/o. Sukumaran Nair VS Aishwarya D/o. Rajani - 2018 Supreme(Ker) 582 - 2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 582
The recovery of consideration in agreements opposed to public policy is generally barred. Courts consistently hold that such agreements are unlawful and unenforceable, denying any attempt to reclaim payments made. Gurmukh Singh VS Amar Singh - 1991 0 Supreme(SC) 163V. Narasimharaju VS V. Gurumurthy Raju - 1962 0 Supreme(SC) 269
Why? Because aiding recovery would indirectly endorse illegality. The principle is clear: Courts will not aid illegal transactions. Gurmukh Singh VS Amar Singh - 1991 0 Supreme(SC) 163 No party can benefit from a contract that tends to be injurious to the public welfare. Gurmukh Singh VS Amar Singh - 1991 0 Supreme(SC) 163
In arbitration contexts, for instance, considerations involving unlawful purposes—like basing agreements on criminal complaint withdrawals—are invalid as they oppose public policy, preventing recovery. V. Narasimharaju VS V. Gurumurthy Raju - 1962 0 Supreme(SC) 269
Indian courts, including the Supreme Court, have reinforced this stance. Agreements involving bribery, fraud, or illegal transactions are void, with no assistance for recovering consideration. Gurmukh Singh VS Amar Singh - 1991 0 Supreme(SC) 163
Public policy in arbitration awards is scrutinized similarly: An award which is patently in violation of statutory provisions cannot be held to be in public interest. Batliboi Environmental Engineers Limited VS Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 986 Courts set aside awards violating fundamental policy, such as fraud or corruption. National Highways Authority of India VS Patel Knr Heavy Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - DelhiSree Durga Estates VS J. A. S. Padmaja W/o J. Venkata Ramudu - TelanganaAiims VS S. S. Total Construction India Pvt. Ltd. - DelhiSouth City Projects (Kolkata) Limited VS Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority - Calcutta
Broader applications include:- Restraint of trade or waiving rights: Void if against public interest. Bharatbhai Ramjibhai Rathod VS Deputy Executive Engineer, Khambhat Irrigation Sub Division - GujaratPradeep Yashwant Nagrale VS Vyankanna Laxmanna - Bombay- Security disguised as sales: Decrees may be challenged if unfair or policy-violating. Krishan Kumar Verma VS Narender Prabhakar - 2009 Supreme(P&H) 717 - 2009 0 Supreme(P&H) 717- Statutory recovery procedures: Emphasize public interest in expeditious collection. Pawapuri Rice Mills VS Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. - Supreme Court
The concept of ‘public policy’ connotes a matter which concerns public good and public interest. Batliboi Environmental Engineers Limited VS Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 986 This dynamic doctrine adapts to societal changes but upholds core protections. Gurmukh Singh VS Amar Singh - 1991 0 Supreme(SC) 163
If an agreement is void for public policy reasons, consideration paid is irrecoverable. Courts refuse to intervene, as it would undermine public interest. For SPAs or letters violating statutes like CA 2013, the object itself is challenged as policy-opposed. GPE (India) Ltd VS Twarit Consultancy Services Private Limited - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 102
In public demands or contracts, breaches are civil, but recovery follows strict procedures aligned with public good. Pawapuri Rice Mills VS Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. - Supreme Court The focus remains: Does the agreement promote or harm public welfare? Vijaya Bank VS Prashant B Narnaware - Supreme CourtPradeep Yashwant Nagrale VS Vyankanna Laxmanna - Bombay
While rigid, public policy isn't absolute. Courts may consider evolving norms, but recovery under illegal contracts remains barred. Gurmukh Singh VS Amar Singh - 1991 0 Supreme(SC) 163 No static definition exists; it depends on transaction nature and statutes. Batliboi Environmental Engineers Limited VS Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 986
For instance, matters like family compromises may invoke policy flexibly, but core illegality prevails. Vikraman Nair S/o. Sukumaran Nair VS Aishwarya D/o. Rajani - 2018 Supreme(Ker) 582 - 2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 582
To avoid pitfalls:- Vet agreements thoroughly: Ensure objects and considerations align with law and policy.- Seek legal review: Before deals with potential gray areas, like arbitration clauses or share purchases.- Document intent clearly: Avoid implications of illegality.- Understand consequences: Void agreements mean no enforcement or refunds—plan accordingly.
In disputes, courts prioritize legality, refusing aid to illegal bargains. Gurmukh Singh VS Amar Singh - 1991 0 Supreme(SC) 163
This principle underscores contract law's role in fostering ethical commerce. Stay informed, draft wisely, and safeguard your interests.
References:1. Gurmukh Singh VS Amar Singh - 1991 0 Supreme(SC) 163: Core principles on void agreements and non-recovery.2. V. Narasimharaju VS V. Gurumurthy Raju - 1962 0 Supreme(SC) 269: Arbitration cases on unlawful considerations.3. Additional insights from GPE (India) Ltd VS Twarit Consultancy Services Private Limited - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 102, Batliboi Environmental Engineers Limited VS Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 986, K. P. Abdul Hakeem @ Manu, S/o Late Kunhami VS Asmabi M P, D/o Late Moideen - 2023 Supreme(Ker) 43 - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 43, Rockline Construction Company, Mumbai VS Doha Bank, Mumbai - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 2217 - 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 2217, Vikraman Nair S/o. Sukumaran Nair VS Aishwarya D/o. Rajani - 2018 Supreme(Ker) 582 - 2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 582, J. K. Panthaki & Co. , Bangalore, Represented by its Partner, Neville Panthaki VS Income Tax Officer - 2010 Supreme(Kar) 848 - 2010 0 Supreme(Kar) 848, Bharatbhai Ramjibhai Rathod VS Deputy Executive Engineer, Khambhat Irrigation Sub Division - Gujarat, Vijaya Bank VS Prashant B Narnaware - Supreme Court, Pawapuri Rice Mills VS Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. - Supreme Court, National Highways Authority of India VS Patel Knr Heavy Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - Delhi, Sree Durga Estates VS J. A. S. Padmaja W/o J. Venkata Ramudu - Telangana, Aiims VS S. S. Total Construction India Pvt. Ltd. - Delhi, South City Projects (Kolkata) Limited VS Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority - Calcutta, Pradeep Yashwant Nagrale VS Vyankanna Laxmanna - Bombay.
#PublicPolicy #ContractLaw #IndianLaw
In any case, any agreement, which tends to be injurious to an employee or against his interest or public good, is liable to be invalidated on the ground of public policy. ... Any agreement, which tends to be injurious to the public or against the public good, is liable to be invalidated on the ground of public policy. In other words, ....
The answer depends on the consideration of jurisdictional facts. 15. On 01.07.1914, the Act was gazetted, and one of the objects was to consolidate and amend the law relating to the recovery of public demands. ... The argument that the absence of a specific clause in the agreement authorising recovery under the Act, thus negating the jurisdiction of the certificate officer, is untenable. The Act itself pr....
The petitioner has failed to show that the impugned Award is against the public policy of India. There is also no substantive case made out for violation of law, public policy or even patent illegality. ... In addition, contravention of law not linked to public policy or public interest is beyond the scope of the expression "patent illegality". ... The learned counsel f....
The next issue is whether the object or consideration of the SPAs and the Letter Agreement violate public policy because it violates Section 67(2) of CA 2013. ... The principal ground of challenge is that the object of and consideration specified in the First to Third SPAs is violative of public policy. ... According to the respondents, the SPAs violate public....
The only relevant provision in the Indian Contract Act which can apply is Section 23 when it states that “The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless ... the court regards it as ... opposed to public policy.” ... The Indian Contract Act does not define the expression “public policy” or “opposed to public policy”. From the very nature ....
In short, what is not subsumed within “the fundamental policy of Indian law” namely, the contravention of a statute not linked to public policy or public interest, cannot be brought in by the backdoor when it comes to setting aside an award on the ground of patent illegality.” ... What is clear, therefore, is that the expression “public policy of India”, whether contained in Section 34 o....
In addition, contravention of law not linked to public policy or public interest is beyond the scope of the expression "patent illegality". ... In short, what is not subsumed within "the fundamental policy of Indian law", namely, the contravention of a statute not linked to public policy or public interest, cannot be brought in by the backdoor when it comes to setting a....
“against the fundamental policy or public policy” of India. ... The award dated 22nd June 2020 modified by order dated 14th August 2020 ought to be declared against the public policy of India and public interest and is therefore liable to be set aside. ... Yet another expansion of the phrase “public policy of India” contained in Section 34 of the 1996 ....
The concept of ‘public policy’ connotes a matter which concerns public good and public interest. An award which is patently in violation of statutory provisions cannot be held to be in public interest. ... Further, what would constitute public policy is a matter dependent upon the nature of transaction and the statute. ... Suffice it is to note at this stage that while ....
It is, therefore, crystal clear that the agreement between the accused and the complainant was void as the consideration and object was forbidden by law as well as against the public policy. ... property of another; or the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy. ... According to the accused, the complainant admittedly made a payment to him to secure a job to his son in ....
If the object or consideration of an agreement would defeat the provisions of any law, and if it is against the public policy, the agreement will be treated as unlawful and void.
In Halsbury Laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol.9 in para 392, the principle is stated as "Any agreement which tends to be injurious to public or against the public good is invalidated on the grounds of public policy. The question whether a particular agreement is contrary to public policy is a question of law to be determined like any other question by proper application of prior decisions". a contract is void if its purpose is to commit an illegal act; a contract which is expressly or impliedl....
This is a matter of public policy and not of an individual (See Ranjit Kaur v. Pavittar Singh, 1992 CrLJ 262, Hanamant Basappa Choudhari v. Laxmawwa, 2002 CrLJ 4397, Rajesh Kochar v. Reeta Kumari, 2002 CrLJ 3357, Sushil Kumar v. Neelam, 2004 CrLJ 3690, Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi v. Manorma, 2009 CrLJ 139 and Varshaben Himantlal Vejani v. State of Gujarat, 2017 CrLJ 869). If the object or consideration of an agreement would defeat the provisions of any law, and if it is against the public....
The question whether a particular agreement is contrary to public policy is a question of law, to be determined like any other question of law by the proper application of legal principles and prior decisions. Any agreement which tends to be injurious to the public or against the public good is invalidated on the grounds of public policy. In the latter class, one has to consider not what act the statute prohibits, but what contracts it prohibits.
2. Whether the decree was against public policy, as the agreement was grossly unfair ?" Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is outcome of misreading of documentary and oral evidence, in recording a finding that the agreement was for sale of property instead of it being security for loan ?"
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
