The term « object » used in section 23 means « object » and does not make sense in the same sense as « reflection. » For this reason, the consideration of a contract may be legal and real, but this will not prevent the contract from being illegal if the purpose (object) of the contract is illegal. Section 23 limits jurisdictions to the purpose of the agreement or the transaction itself, as the section is not motivated by the motive, and not to the motives that flow from it. 17. The relevant figures in Section 23: e) A, B and C enter into an agreement on the fraud distribution of profits they have acquired or will be acquired. 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. 3. In Re: K.L. Gauba (23.04.1954 – BOMHC) [AIR 1954 Bom 478]. Para 11: « … The freedom of the citizen, as well as the freedom of the lawyer to enter into a contract, is always subject to the public order imperatives as expressed in page 23 of the Indian Contract Act. This freedom is also subject to the other considerations set out in question 23. 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. Section 23 states that the consideration or purpose of the agreement is illegal when it is « fraudulent » 17 However, subject to such similar exceptions and exemptions, contracts that are not illegal and are not due to fraud must be respected in all respects: pacta conventa quae neque contra leges neque dolo mall inita suntmodo observanda sunt (contracts that are not illegal) and do not come from fraud , to be considered in all respects). « … A law-free contract has no legal effect. An illegal contract, similar to the nullity contract, since it also has no legal value between the direct parties, has the effect that has followed since then that even transactions that are too guaranteed with it are illegal and that, therefore, we are not applicable in certain circumstances. Where an agreement is merely a guarantee for another agreement or constitutes aid that facilitates the implementation of the purpose of the other agreement, which, although cancelled, is not prohibited by law, it can be applied as a security agreement.