From a perspective, the key elements of Section 23 should be briefly examined; Which are like underneath. In accordance with Section 23, the difference between non-concluded agreements and illegal agreements is very small or minimal. Anson13: “The law can either prohibit the agreement or it can only say that if it is done, the courts will not enforce it. In the first case, it is illegal, but to the extent that illegal contracts are also non-hazard, although nullity contracts are not necessarily necessary, the distinction is not important for most purposes, and even judges seem to treat them as alternative. In a recent mandate9, our firm advised the client not to include such conditions in the document to be executed between the parties, which would be contrary to any law in India. The client was informed that if the contract were to be implemented by a part of it, any application of such a contract or part of it in India would not be possible if the agreement or its purpose or consideration is contrary to a statute in India. In addition, despite the inclusion of information, compensation, obligations, etc., in the contract and related transaction documents, it is advantageous for the purposes of an act in India if the contract or part of it is contrary to the statues, regulations, ordinances, statutes, directives, etc. in force in India. In this case, the contract is not valid for the purpose of an act in India in light of the aforementioned provisions of the law, because a party does not agree with an agreement contrary to the law. In addition, the benefit of adding the aforementioned disclaimer, compensation and undertaking in the contract will protect the interests of the foreign ownership company (our client) only in the place where the law has been made applicable to the contract. In the event that an Indian law contravenes such a disclaimer, compensation and obligation are not a reason for any defence, for any act in India that is available to the party seeking protection. The Supreme Court of India has dealt with certain Section 23 cases that find certain contract negotiations to be cancelled.
In “ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd.” 21 With respect to the interpretation of the importance of “public order” in this case, the Hon`ble Court indicated that several authorities had repeatedly indicated that the term “public order” did not allow for precise definition and could vary from generation to generation and from time to time.