Section 232 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“Law”), lists three points, namely the consideration of the agreement, the purpose of the contract and the agreement itself. Section 23 imposes a restriction on a person`s liberty in the process of contracting and subjects that person`s rights to compelling public policy considerations and other considerations under it.3 Section 23 is also important in the other sections of the Act, sections 264, 275, 286 and 307. This is not of the same importance as reflection and is not used in the same way. According to this connotation, if a contract has a legal and effective consideration, it will not prevent the contract of the object disputed, that is, the object of the contract is illegal and contrary to public order. To establish the illegality of a treaty, the commonly followed basic rule is: “Do the parties oppose the law by getting involved in the treaty?” If this question provides a positive answer, the treaty is illegal and unenforceable. Section 23 of the Indian Treaty has various parties to it that determine the illegality of a contract. The words “if they are allowed to destroy the legal provisions” must be interpreted as referring to the implementation of an agreement that necessarily results in the overstay of the provisions of a statute. The general rule of law, as applied by the courts, is based on the exception of the maxim modus and conventio vincunt legem11. In other words, if the explicit provisions of a law are violated by a contract, the interests of the parties or third parties would be affected by their performance. The contracting parties have the power to settle their rights and undertakings themselves and the Tribunal only takes into force the intention of the parties as set out in the contract, in accordance with the laws of the country in force. In addition, the scope and scope of cancellation agreements are broader than those of illegal agreements. Not all non-legal agreements can be considered illegal; However, all illicit agreements are, from the outset, unsted.

Empty agreements are not punishable in the eyes of the law. The parties are not criminally responsible for the conclusion of unseeded agreements. On the contrary, illicit agreements are governed by the Indian penal code, so that parties to an illegal agreement are held criminally responsible for their actions in the context of the enforcement of such agreements. “If the predetermined thing is in itself contrary to the law, the act by which the execution of the illegal act is prescribed must be considered null and void in itself: pactis privatorum juri publico non derogatur. 8 After considering the above, it is clear that the illegal and illegal agreement is very different. One of the factors that led to the cancellation of an agreement was the illegality of the contract, for example. B the contract whose purpose or consideration is illegal. Moreover, both agreements lose their irreplaceable character by law.

It is rightly said that all illegal agreements are null and for none, but that not all non-legal agreements are illegal.