Is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law: Where provisions of any statutory law or any legislative enactment like Hindu Law or Mohammedan Law contravened or where acts of legislature or other rules of law for the time being in force in India are violated, such an agreement is unlawful.
Where an agreement is entered into to defeat the intention of the Legislature, such an agreement would defeat the provisions of any law and will therefore be unlawful.
1) An agreement by a debtor not to raise a plea of limitation is void as it defeats the provision of the Limitation Act.
2) A is ordered to be released on a bail of Rs 5000/- B offers to stand surely for A. A deposit with B Rs 5000/-. Such an agreement is void as it would render B as a surely only in name and would thereby contravene provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code
3) A a Muslim contracts to marry B. A already has four wives. His marriage with B would be void as the same would contravene provisions of the Mohammedan Law as a Muslim is authorized to only four marriages.
4) A contract to give his son B in adoption in consideration of an annual allowance to the natural parents. No suit be allowed to recover any allowance on such a contract as such an agreement defeats the provision of Hindu Law
5) A’s estate is sold for arrears to revenue under the provisions of an Act of the Legislature, by which the defaulter is prohibited from purchasing the estate. B, upon an understanding with A, becomes the purchaser and agrees to convey the estate to A upon receiving from him a price which B has paid. The agreement is void as it renders the transaction in effect a purchase by the defaulter and would so defeat the object of the law.
An agreement with an intention to commit offence or practice fraud upon some person would be void as being fraudulent. It includes defrauding creditors, revenue authorities etc.
1) A and B agree to distribute between themselves gains acquired, or to be acquired by them by fraud. The agreement is void.
2) A, being an agent for a landed proprietor, agrees for money, without the knowledge of his principal, to obtain for B a lease of land belonging to his principal. The agreement between A and B is void as it implies a fraud by concealment by A on his principal.
3) A, debtor agrees to pay a separate commission to B, a creditor, to induce his consent to a composition proposed with other creditors. The object of agreement is fraudulent.
An agreement between some persons to purchase shares in company and thus by fraud and deceit to induce other persons to believe contrary to the fact, that there is a bonafide market for the shares, is void. If the purchase of the shares in a company is done sue-reptitously with malafide intention by making use of some public financial institution in a clandestine manner, such deal or transaction would be contrary to public policy and illegal.
It involves or implies injury to the person or property of another: If the object of an agreement is to injure a person or properly of another by causing criminal or wrongful harm, it is void.
A promises to pay B Rs 500/- if he publishes an article defamatory in character against C, so that it would lower his reputation. B publishes the same. A refuses to pay Rs 500/-. On a suit filed by B to recover the amount, B would not succeed as the agreement between A and B was to involve injury to C’s person.
Similarly an agreement to indemnify a person against the consequences of a wrongful act would also be void. So also in case of default, a bond to pay exorbitant interest and principal sum at once is void as it involves injury to person.
The Court regards it as immoral or opposed to public poli8cy: An agreement the consideration or object of which is immoral or opposed to public policy is unlawful.
1) A who is B’s mukhtar, promises to exercise his influence as such with B in favor of C and C promises to pay 1,000 rupees to A. The agreement is void because it is immoral.
2) A agrees to let her daughter to hire B for concubinage. The agreement is void because it is immoral, though the letting may not be punishable under the Indian Penal code.