Section 27 of the Act refers only to one exception that favours the restriction of trade, that is, the sale of business property or corporations. Another exception is the Partnership Act. In this case, the Supreme Court concluded that Article 27 expressly annulled all the agreements (except) and that it is not possible to attribute two meanings to the section. The acceptability check in force in England cannot be applied in India. In accordance with section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements to restrict marriage, with the exception of that of a minor, are null and void. The Romans were the first to delegitimize the agreements that hold back marriage. The basis for the nullity of agreements limiting marriage is that marriage is a sacrament and should not intervene in the institution of marriage, not even in treaties. The idea behind this provision is not to deprive everyone of the personal right to marry someone of their choice. It is important to note that, in accordance with the section “Agreements limiting the marriage of a minor”, the provisions are void. […] Agreement with restriction of marriage (§ 26) … In the common law, a common sense test is followed.
An agreement to restrict trade is valid if: Another exception to the limitation rule for trade restriction agreements is provided for in the Partnership Act 1932. The law provides for three exceptions. These are: (a) A agrees with B for a good idea that she will not marry C. It is an agreement that has not been concluded. Every individual enjoys the freedom to marry and, according to section 26 of the Contracts Act, “any agreement to restrict the marriage of a person other than a minor is void”. The restriction may be general or partial, but the agreement is void and, therefore, an agreement that undertakes not to marry at all, or a particular person or class of persons or for a specified period, is invalid. However, an agreement limiting the marriage of a minor is valid in accordance with the section. Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act cancelled all pro-tanto trade restriction agreements, with the sole exception of the sale of exploitable property or goodwill.
However, it is important to understand that these agreements are non-illegal. In other words, these agreements are not illegal, but they cannot be brought to justice if one of the parties does not fulfill its part of the agreement. Unlike customary law, partial agreements aimed at restricting trade or appropriately restricting under the Contracts Act are also not valid. In other words, any agreement that prevents a person from starting or continuing his profession against a paid counterparty is nullity. . . .