The concept of public order in the broadest sense implies a restriction on the freedom of persons to do something in the best interests or for the good of the Community. Under india`s Contracts Act, it limits contractual freedom in certain areas that undermine public order. An agreement is a non-endorsement if the law considers it in opposition to public order. It is a trivial law that a person who knowingly enters into a contract with an inoperable object cannot assert his rights in relation to such a treaty. In particular, the law does not define the terms “public order” or “against public order” or “against public order” or “against public order” nowhere. It can be seen, however, that the term “public order” could clearly involve issues of public or public utility and the interest of the general lake. “Public policy” is “…… a vaguely unsatisfactory clause that should lead to uncertainty and error when applying the rights decision; it is capable of being understood in different senses; it can and does, in the normal sense of the word, the political opportunity or what is best for the common good of the Community; and in that sense, there can be a whole range of opinions; according to the training, habits, talents and provisions of any person who must decide whether an act is contrary to public order or not… Lord Atkin18: the words “if authorized, would defeat section 23 legislation” should 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. An agreement may consist of legal and illegal promises. If the legal promise can be separated from the illegal promise, the legal promise can be implemented. In such a case, the illegal part is null and fore. If the legal promise cannot be dissociated from the illegal promise, all of this would be null and for none. In the case of a single consideration for one or more illegal objects, the agreement is void. Therefore, if an agreement contains several different promises to make things legal and other things illegal, and the legal part cannot be separated from the illegal part (i.e. the consideration of various promises is a sum of money), the whole agreement is illegal and not anier. When a transaction resulting from an unlawful act is considered a valid agreement when it is separated from the illegal party, those transactions have a value in the eyes of the law, regardless of the illegality of the agreement. Example 1: A B promises to drop a charge he has made against B for theft, while B promises to restore the value of things.
The agreement is null and forth, because its purpose is illegal. The above principle was followed by the Supreme Court of India in Gherulal Parekh v. Mahadevdas Maiya19, Hon`ble Justice Subba Rao referring to Lord Atkin`s observation: “… Public order or the politics of the law is an illustrative concept.