With the Interest Act of 1978 and taking into account the importance of morality in trade agreements, the Tribunal understood that the extent of immorality could no longer be limited to the case of immoral sexual contracts, but that it should also be extended to the interpretation of immorality in trade agreements. Illegal withholding of money and non-payment of interest over a long period of time have not been found to be justified by the judge in today`s world. Accordingly, the Tribunal considered that all contractual agreements involving the holding of the principal money or the interest payable to the other party for a very long period of time were immoral, which led to the impratibility of such agreements. Second, both parties must approve the conclusion of the agreement while indicating that they were not forced or threatened to enter into the contract. Also with the fall of Gherulal Parakh v Mahadeodas Maiya and Ors. , the extent of immorality under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act had been limited only to cases of sexual immorality. Thus, all agreements concluded for concubine, agreements to facilitate divorce, agreements for the sale or rental of property used by prostitutes in a brothel, supply agreements, marriage for the examination of agreements, etc., are considered to me immoral and therefore illegal and therefore unenforceable. Thus, after this case, only agreements that oppose the “sexual” moral norms of the place were declared immoral. Thus, this legality of a contract is governed by section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which clearly defines the conditions on which the purpose and consideration of an agreement is considered lawful. These conditions include: 1. Should not be prohibited by law Although the purpose or reflection for an agreement, sometimes not directly prohibited by law, they are always prohibited when it destroys the purpose of the purpose of the provision of the law.
The authorization of such an object or such consideration is void. If a decree-law provides for a sanction for an act or promise, the execution of such an act or promise would amount to the defeat of that law, because it is implied that the statute intends to prohibit that act.