Scarth was held by the court that any restriction that binds a person is not invalid and falls within the exceptions in section 27. These legal and judicial exceptions are discussed below. 6. Agreements to limit legal proceedings (a) If the parties are aware of such acts:- such impossibility is qualified as an absolute impossibility and, in such cases, the agreement is annulled from the outset. If a Tantr B promises to live in C`s dead body for a counterpart of RS. 5,000, the promise that makes this agreement is not valid from the beginning, because it is a hard fact that life cannot be put back in a dead body. The word “object” used in Section 23 means “object” and does not claim to have a meaning in the same sense as “reflection”. For this reason, even if the consideration of a contract may be legal and real, it will not prevent the treaty from being illegal if the object (of the object) of the treaty is illegal. “As long as the negative provision is nothing more than an ordinary incident or an accessory to the positive alliance, there is nothing offensive to Section 27. However, the court cannot approve the agreement, especially if the buyer intends to place or monopolize the goods so that it can resell at its own price or if it binds the seller for an inappropriate period. [11] This was released at Sheikh Kallu vs Ramsaran Bhagat.

. . .