When an agreement restricts the statute of limitations, it is anniated. Because their goal is to defeat the legal provisions. If someone trades with enemies of the state, it will always be considered contrary to public order. Contracts that involve the trade of enemies are illegal and are not enforced by the court. 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 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. 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. An agreement with the intention of defrauding creditors or tax authorities is not applicable, as it is contrary to public policy. In principle, it is presumed that a contract or act is contrary to public order if it results in a violation of the law, harms citizens or harms the state. In general, public policy means that courts sometimes invalidate a contract because it is contrary to the common good. Figure 1: A person `A` is convicted of murder. His friend "P" goes to court to reach an agreement to give order in favor of "A".