In Veerayya v. Sobhanandri[vii], a person who entered into an agreement to withdraw the 1860 charge from the Indian Penal Code against the accused. It was found that, since the infringement was cumulative, authorisation from the General Court is required and that, consequently, the agreement was annulled. In the case of Ouseph Poulo v La Banque catholique Ag [viii], two parties also concluded an agreement to close the criminal proceedings against a given counterparty, finding that this type of transaction was intended for public order. 4. agreements that limit individual freedom. An agreement that excessively restricts individual freedom is contrary to public order. An agreement by a debtor to perform manual work for the creditor, as long as the debt is not fully paid, is futile. The undue nature of any influence on judges or magistrates is illegal. 9. Trade with the enemy. An Indian national can do without a license from the.
Government. An agreement with a foreign enemy is illegal, invalid and ineffective. (AGREEMENTS AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER) The collector`s permission, pursuant to Section 43 of the Bombay Property and Agriculture Act in 1948, was not required for the agreement to sell ancient land. The collector`s permission was also not required, since the land was already subject to the Bombay Determination and Agriculture Act. This agreement was not contrary to section 23, as there was no irrefutable evidence of the date on which these lands were obtained final land numbers.  It is therefore generally accepted that courts do not impose or recognize an agreement that has the effect of removing prosecutions for public offences from the normal judicial process. If an agreement reduces the limitation period, it is untested.