Cases Related To Agreement In Restraint Of Marriage

In this regard, it should be noted, however, that a violation of section 26 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 was not invoked in this case before the Apex Court, since there is a partial limitation of marriage under the service contract. “26th agreement to restrict marriage in certain cases: in this case, two similar entrepreneurs have agreed, in partnership, that only one of their factories should operate at a time and that the profits would be shared among themselves. This reluctance was considered valid. Shalini has an office supplies and book shop in a village of Bareilly. A Zahida person plans to open his store with similar goods in the same place. Fearing competition in the market, Shalini reached an agreement with Zahida not to open its operations in the region for 15 years and promised, in return, to pay him a certain amount of money each month. Thereafter, Shalini will not pay the agreed amount. Zahida is trying to take the case to court. The agreement is not concluded, Zahida has no case. However, an engagement contract is also not considered to be an agreement limiting marriage within the scope of section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, since the main difference between an agreement to restrict marriage and an engagement contract is that, in the latter case, any party is prevented from marrying anyone other than the other. the reluctance practically favors the marriage of the two. An agreement limiting marriage differs from both a marital intermediation contract and an engagement contract. English law will advise against agreements that restrict marriage, as they are indigenous to population growth and the moral well-being of citizens.

As early as 1768, a precedent was set by the Court of King`s Bench in Lowe v. Peers, where the accused had made a sealed promise not to marry anyone other than the promise she paid him £1,000 within three months of marrying someone else. In India, contractual relations between two or more parties are mainly governed by the Indian Contracts Act 1872, passed by the British imperial government, which at that time exercised control of the country. Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 provides that any convention to restrict marriage, except those restricting the marriage of minors, is null and void. In this case, Thorsten Nordenfelt was a weapons manufacturer in Sweden and England. Thorsten sold his business to a company that later transferred the store to Maxim Nordenfelt. At that time, Thorsten made a deal with Maxim not to manufacture weapons for 25 years, except for what he manufactured on behalf of the company. Subsequently, Thorsten broke his vows by saying that the agreement was not applicable because it keeps trade restricted. The court`s decision was made in Thorsten`s favor. In the most recent case of Shrawan Kumar v.

Nirmala, the plaintiff, filed an appeal with the Allahabad Supreme Court and asked the court for an injunction on the accused`s marriage to the other person. The applicant argued that the defendant had promised to marry her and that her marriage to the other person should therefore be stopped. Pankaj Mithal, J. cited, in pronouncing his judgment, section 26 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872, thus rejecting the petition. Under section 27 of the Act, an agreement to restrict trade is not in accordance with section 27 of the Act. In other words, any agreement that prevents a person from starting or continuing his profession against a paid counterparty is nullity. Therefore, any agreement that prevents a person from acting as he wishes or where he wishes is called an agreement with another party in which the other party benefits from the cessation of his trade or profession as an agreement to restrict trade. .

. .