Indian Contract Act, 1872 · Chapter II: Of Contracts, Voidable Contracts and Void Agreements
Section 23: What considerations and objects are lawful, and what not
The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless—
it is forbidden by law1 ; or
is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; or
is fraudulent ; or
involves or implies, injury to the person or property of another; or
the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy.
In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.
Illustrations
(a) A agrees to sell his house to B for 10,000 rupees. Here Bs promise to pay the sum of 10,000 rupees is the consideration for As promise to sell the house, and As promise to sell the house is the consideration for Bs promise to pay the 10,000 rupees. These are lawful considerations.
(b) A promises to pay B 1,000 rupees at the end of six months, if C, who owes that sum to B, fails to pay it. B promises to grant time to C accordingly. Here, the promise of each party is the consideration for the promise of the other party, and they are lawful considerations.
(c) A promises, for a certain sum paid to him by B, to make good to B the value of his ship if it is wrecked on a certain voyage. Here, As promise is the consideration for Bs payment and Bs payment is the consideration for As promise, and these are lawful considerations.
(d) A promises to maintain Bs child, and B promises to pay A 1,000 rupees yearly for the purpose. Here, the promise of each party is the consideration for the promise of the other party. They are lawful considerations.
(e) A, B and C enter into an agreement for the division among them of gains acquired or to be acquired, by them by fraud. The agreement is void, as its object is unlawful.
(f) A promises to obtain for B an employment in the public service and B promises to pay 1,000 rupees to A. The agreement is void, as the consideration for it is unlawful.
(g) A, being 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.
(h) A promises B to drop a prosecution which he has instituted against B for robbery, and B promises to restore the value of the things taken. The agreement is void, as its object is unlawful.
(i) As estate is sold for arrears of 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 the 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.
(j) A, who is Bs mukhtar, promises to exercise his influence, as such, with B in favour of C, and C promises to pay 1,000 rupees to A. The agreement is void, because it is immoral.
(k) A agrees to let her daughter to hire to B for concubinage. The agreement is void, because it is immoral, though the letting may not be punishable under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 15 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 23
-
P. Anjanappa (D) By Lrs v. A.P. Nanjundappa & Ors.
Issue arose whether the registered release deeds are valid and binding, and if so, what is their legal effect on the membership and share entitlements of plaintiff no. 2 and defendant no. 3; whether the document styled…
-
Vijaya Bank & Anr. v. Prashant B Narnaware
Matter pertains to whether clause 11(k) of the appointment letter that employee to work for minimum three years and in default to pay Rs 2 lakhs as liquidated damages on leaving employment amounts to restraint of trade…
-
Rakesh Kumar Verma v. HDFC Bank Ltd.
Issue arose whether civil suits could have been instituted in courts in Patna and Delhi by employees in view of the specific clauses in the appointment letter that courts in Mumbai would have exclusive jurisdiction to…
-
M/s C & C Constructions Ltd. v. IRCON International Ltd.
Matter pertains to the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, dismissing an appeal u/s.37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that the requirement of clause 49.5 was never waived by the…
-
Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. M/S Eci Spic Smo Mcml (Jv) A Joint Venture Company
a) Whether an appointment process which allows a party who has an interest in the dispute to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator, or curate a panel of arbitrators and mandate that the other party select their…
-
M/S Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. M/S Micromax Informatics Fze
(a) Whether the present petition under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 maintainable in India; (b) whether seat of arbitration designated under the aforesaid Distributorship Agreement is in…
-
Opg Power Generation Private Limited v. Enexio Power Cooling Solutions India Private Limited & Anr.
Issue arose as to whether the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India, or/and is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award; whether the holding company could have been…
-
P. Ravindranath & Anr. v. Sasikala & Ors.
Parties entered into an agreement to sell for sale of a property. Defendant no.1 sent various notices to plaintiffs to execute the sale deed. However, plaintiffs did not execute the sale deed. Thereafter, defendants…
-
N N Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2023) 7
The issue at hand arose in the context of three statutes; the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Stamp Act imposes duty on “instruments”.…
- Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union
- Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal
- M/s N. N. GLOBAL MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/s
- Union of India & Ors. v. M/S. Bharat Enterprise
- Elumalai @ Venkatesan & Anr. v. M. Kamala
- Loop Telecom and Trading Limited v. Union of India and Anr.
- M/S Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit - II
- B.B. Patel & Ors v. Dlf Universal Ltd
- G.T. Girish v. Y. Subba Raju (D) by Lrs and Another
- Somesh Thapliyal & Anr. Etc. v. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal University & Anr.
- Pasl Wind Solutions Private Limited v. Ge Power Conversion India Private Limited
- Asha John Divianathan v. Vikram Malhotra & Ors.
- Ferrodous Estates (Pvt.) Ltd. v. P. Gopirathnam (Dead) & Ors.
- M/S Exl Careers and Another v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited
- Surendra Kumar Bhilawe v. The New India Assurance Company Limited
- Vinodchandra Sakarlal Kapadia v. State of Gujarat and Ors.
- M/S. Centrotrade Minerals and Metals Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd.
- Firm Rajasthan Udyog & Ors. v. Hindustan Engineering & Industries Ltd.
- National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India v. Alimenta S.A.
- Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. v. Radhey Shyam Pandey
- M/S. Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Crompton Greaves Ltd.
- Perkins Eastman Architects Dpc & Anr.C (India) Ltd. v. Hscc (India) Ltd
- River Pellets Limited v. Kamachi Industries Limited
- The Director Steel Authority of India Ltd.V. Ispat Khadan Janta Mazdoor Union v. Ispat Khadan Janta Mazdoor Union
- The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited and v. S. N. Raj Kumar and Another
- State of Karnataka by Its Chief Secretary v. State of T. N. by Its Chief Secretary [Dipak Misra, Cji] 829 the State of Karnataka by Its Chief Secretarystate of Tamil Nadu by Its Chief Secretary & Ors.
- B. Sunitha v. The State of Telengana & Anr.
- The State of Punjab & Another v. . Dharam Pal
- Trf Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd.
- R. Rajashekar and Ors. v. Trinity House Building Co-Operative Society and Ors.
- Sasan Power Limited v. North American Coal Corporation India Private Limited
- State Bank of Hyderabad v. Rabo Bank
- Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Kerala v. M/S Larsen & Toubro Ltd.
- Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Union of India
- Rajasthan Housing Board v. New Pink City Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. & Anr.
- Bcci v. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors.
- Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority
- City Industrial Development Thr. Its Managing Director v. Platinum Entertainment and Others
- Swan Gold Mining Ltd. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd.
- State Bank of Patiala v. Pritam Singh Bedi & Ors.
- Ram Karan (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
- Reliance Industries .Limited & Anr. v. Union of India
- World Sport Group (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Msm Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
- Mary v. State of Kerala and Ors,
- M/S. Swastik Gases P. Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd.
- Mahalaxmi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. & Etc. v. Ashabhai Atmaram Patel(D) Th. Lrs. and Ors.
- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy & Ors.
- Ghulam Nabi Dar & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors.
- Mahesh Chandra Verma & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
- Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and Others
- Bangalore City Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Others
- A.V.M. Sales Corporation v. M/S. Anuradha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
- Union of India v. Col. L.S.N. Murthy & Anr.
- Bakshi Dev Raj & Anr. v. Sudhir Kumar
- Delhi Development Authority v. S.S. Aggarwal & Ors.
- Shehammal v. Hasan Khani Rawther and Ors.
- Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. and Another.
- M/S. Empire Industries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
- S. Nagaraj (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. v. B.R. Vasudeva Murthy & Ors. Etc. Etc.