Those Agreement which are declared as Void in INDIAN CONTRACT ACT 1872. whether or not those agreements satisfy the requirement or condition of a sound contract but they're not enforceable by law. Agreement are those void which aren't under any consideration are generally void.
Section 26: in line with this section Agreement is restrained of the wedding when someone could be a minor is void. Those agreements when an individual has a freedom to marry someone of their choice is against the general public policy is additionally void.
CASE LAW
Air India and Others v. Nergesh Meerza and Others:
During this case where the court validated the restriction on marriage inflicted by the service regulation of Air India and Indian Airlines. The mentioned regulation insist air hostesses retire if she
• Attain 35 years
• Get into a marital relationship within 4 years of service
• Is on her first pregnancy
The Apex court reprimanded the rule against the primary pregnancy on the bottom of Article 14 of Indian constitution: but upheld the partial restrictions on marriage by vindicating it to be the sensible need of the service. Purportedly, many rationalized the judgement because the regulations in question haven't limited an employee from getting married since it gives such freedom to leaving the task.
Section 27: per this section when every agreement by which anyone is restrained from exercising the lawful profession trade or business of any kind is void.
An agreement by which unnecessary curtails the liberty of someone to trade against the general public policy. Restraining someone from carrying on a trade generally aims at avoiding competition and has a monopolistic tendency and this is often both against a personal interest also because the interest of the society and on its ground such restraints are discouraged by law.
Section 27 which declares an agreement is a restraint of trade as void, doesn't allow any distinction between a complete restraint or partial restraint. Thus, whether the agreement imposes a complete restraint.e.g., it says that A shall not persevere a trade anywhere within the country during his lifetime, or it imposes only a partial restraint requiring A to not trade within a particular duration, thus the agreement is void.
Subha Naidu v, Hazi badsha:
The Court held that the agreement is an exclusive dealing agreement which falls into the exceptions of section 27, Hence this Contract is valid.
When there's a purchase of a business by person together with its goodwill, the vendor of the business may make an agreement with the buyer to not keep it up in competition with the client. Such an agreement, if imposes an inexpensive restriction on the seller's right to hold on the business, is valid, both in India and England. Exceptions 1 to Section 27, Indian contract Act 1872, which allows such an agreement on the sale of goodwill.
“Exception 1.-Saving of agreement to not continue business of which goodwill is sold. One who sells the goodwill of a business may trust the customer to refrain from carrying on an analogous business within specified local limits goodbye because the buyer, or somebody deriving title to the goodwill from him, carried on a like business therein, only if such limits appear to the court reasonable, regard being had to the character of the business.”
Thus, an agreement by an individual, who sells the goodwill of his business to not persevere an analogous business, is valid, only if the restrictions are reasonable. When an individual purchases a goodwill of the business, he pays for the correct to hold on a specific kind of business, in exchange for an express or an implied promise by the vendor to not carry or that style of business. it'll be contrary to the spirit of the contract of sale of goodwill, if the vendor of the goodwill, who has received money for the identical, starts that business in competition with the customer again. If the item of the agreement is to shield the proper of the client of the goodwill, the restraint is valid. If on the opposite hand the restraint merely aims at avoiding the competition, the covenant would be invalid.
This article is written by Parth Diwan of Noida International University.