The word “prohibited by law” is not synonymous with “nully” and therefore it is not necessary for anything that is null and void to be “prohibited by law.” 10 The above decision of the Supreme Court of Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas (AIR 1959 SC 781) and the court decided that: 17. Relevant figures in Section 23: e) A, B and C enter into an agreement on the sharing of profits they have acquired or to be acquired through fraud. The agreement is null and forth, because its purpose is illegal. (g) As an agent of a landowner, A undertakes to receive money, without knowledge of his sponsor, to obtain for B a rent of real estate from his client. The agreement between A and B is inconclusive, as it involves fraud by concealment of its client by concealment. 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. There can be big differences between the fact that a contract is an uncon concluded agreement or that it is simply unenforceable. The difference increases the complexity of an already difficult task to assess your legal situation, your rights and your potential liability.
The agreement was illegal and the period of arrest and imprisonment was the main objective of the agreement. This was a serious illegality: it was a conspiracy to rip off an insurance company. The applicant was not allowed to recover the agreed amount. … who have entered into such an agreement, which has been prohibited by law or has been refused by public order, do not have the right to seek the assistance of a court for an exemption.