Mr. Vikas a businessman has been fighting a long-drawn litigation with Mr. Neeraj an industrialist. To support his legal campaign, he enlists the services of Mr. Manoj a Judicial officer stating that the amount of `10 lakhs would be paid to him if he does not take up the brief of Mr. Neeraj. Mr. Manoj agrees but, at the end of the litigation Mr. Vikas refuses to pay to Mr. Manoj. Decide whether Mr. Manoj can recover the amount promised by Mr. Vikas under the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872? OR Mr. Seth (an industrialist) has been fighting a long-drawn litigation with Mr. Raman (another industrialist). To support his legal campaign, Mr. Seth enlists the services of Mr. X, a legal expert stating that an amount of ` 5 lakhs would be paid, if Mr. X does not take up the case of Mr. Raman. Mr. X agrees, but at the end of the litigation, Mr. Seth refused to pay. Decide whether Mr. X can recover the amount promised by Mr. Seth under the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

The problem as asked in the question is based on Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. This Section says that all agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of the parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object and are not expressly declared to be void. Further, Section 23 also states that every agreement of which the object is unlawful is void. Accordingly, one of the essential elements of a valid contract in the light of the said provision is that the agreement entered into must not be which the law declares to be either illegal or void. An illegal agreement is an agreement expressly or impliedly prohibited by law. A void agreement is one without any legal effects. The given instance is a case of interference with the course of justice and results as opposed to public policy. This can also be called an agreement in restraint of legal proceedings. This agreement restricts one’s right to enforce his legal rights. Such an agreement has been expressly declared to be void under section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Hence, Mr. Manoj in the given case cannot recover the amount of ` 10 lakh promised by Mr. Vikas because it is a void agreement and cannot be enforced by law. OR According to Section 27 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 an agreement by which any person is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void. In the instant case, Mr. Seth is in litigation with Mr. Raman since long. Mr. Seth enlists the services of Mr. X a legal expert stating that an amount of ` 5 lakhs would be paid, if Mr. X does not take up the case of Mr. Raman. Mr. X agrees, but at the end of the litigation, Mr. Seth refused to pay. As section 27 makes the contracts in restraint of trade, void, the contract between Mr. Seth and Mr. X is also void. Hence, Mr. X cannot recover the amount promised by Mr. Seth