3] Fraudulent Consideration or Object The Consideration or Object can never be fraudulent. Agreements containing illegal counterparties or fraudulent purposes are inherently. Suppose A decides to sell goods to B and smuggle them out of the country. This is a fraudulent transaction because it is not valid. Now, B cannot get the money back under the law if A doesn`t keep his promise. 2. Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 – What are the legitimate considerations and objectives and what is not The consideration or purpose of an agreement is legitimate, unless prohibited by law; or of such a nature is that, if permitted, it would null and neas the provisions of a statute; fraudulent; a violation of the person or property of another; or the Court considers that it is immoral or contrary to public policy. In each of these cases, the consideration or the object of an agreement is considered illegal. Any agreement whose object or consideration is illegal is cancelled. from the perspective below, the key elements of section 23 should be briefly discussed; Which are like sub.
An order to suspend construction, obtained otherwise than on the charge of illegality of the object of the contract, has been considered non-illegal of the object if, in contentious circumstances, the work is unable to find a buyer, but the contractor cannot dispose of the doctrine of illegality or impossibility.  The term “law” in Section 23 of the Act must be interpreted within the meaning of the concept set out in Section 13(3) of the Constitution; Nutan Kumar v. IInd Additional District Judge, Banda, AIR 1994 All 298. 2] Consideration or object thwarted the provision of the law This means if the contract attempts to thwart the intention of the law. If the courts find that the real intention of the parties to the agreement is to thwart the provisions of the law, they will repeal the contract. Assuming that A and B enter into an agreement under which A is the debtor that B does not invoke the limitation period. However, this is done to counter the intent of the Statute of Limitations and the courts can thus annul the contract for unlawful opposition. . Recoverable. The argument, in more precise terms, means that the agreement under which the money was paid was invalid because its purpose was not legal`empty sections 10 and 23 of the Indian Contract Act, .
of the Indian Contract Act, if it turns out that an agreement is void or a contract becomes void, any person. § 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may only be the subject of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the dishonest of a cheque. He`s going to put that in. . the effect of section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 remains to be considered. . . .