However, by marriage mediation agreements differ from agreements in the withholding of marriage, they are still non-acute according to Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872. Every person has a legitimate right to do or accept a legitimate profession, business or commercial activity. If an agreement is reached to retain this right, it is a violation of its fundamental right and is also contrary to public policy. That is why the Indian Contracts Act expressly struck down these agreements. “26. Agreement on the limitation of marriage, which in some cases is null and for none: thus, a Betrothal contract is not in the restriction of marriage or against public order, as is the case in Tulshiram v. Roopchand, in which a party had declined from the fiancee contract and then claimed that such a contract was null and private. The plaintiff in the case where the compensation was awarded by the court, but for the amount already spent pending the marriage as well as for the mental torture and lack of social esteem that followed. Therefore, although the custom imposes only a partial restriction of marriage with payment of a certain amount, it has conflicted with Section 26 of the Contracts Act. Indian law is very strict on this point. It invalidated many agreements in this environment, when they could have been authorized by the English common law.

English law has weakened from time to time as trade conditions have changed. Until some time ago, it considered the agreements to be valid in a total trade restriction, but in the Nordfalt V. Maxim Guns Co. it was decided in 1894 that if the deference is reasonable, it should be permitted and the agreement should not be annulled if the mores against public order. Thus, Indian courts have not been allowed to consider the level of adequacy or deference. Another type of deduction could have been imposed by allowing marriage only when the person has earned a living. This would ensure that the person is able to assume responsibility for a family when the marriage is concluded, thereby reducing the burden on the parents of the parties and on society as a whole. An act contract that becomes impossible after the contract is concluded or because of an event that the promisor could not prevent becomes invalid if the act becomes impossible or illegal. In this case, the parties were businessmen in Calcutta. The defendant, Rajcoomar suffered a loss due to competition from the complainant and reached an agreement with the complainant that if he entered into his business there, he would have made all the advances he had made to his workers.

When the defendant was unable to pay, the applicant filed an appeal to recover the amount, but failed to do so because it was a trade restriction agreement that was therefore not applicable in court. 28. Agreements limiting judicial proceedings, non-swallowing In the common law, a review of the merits is followed. A trade restriction agreement is valid if: (i) any agreement to completely restrict the marriage of a person other than a minor is null and void. Here, the complainant was the owner of a fleet of buses travelling between Pune and Mahabaleshwar.