Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act declares all agreements in trade restrictions, not entered into by tanto, with the only exception is the sale of goodwill. Nevertheless, it is important to understand that these agreements are non-abundant and not illegal. In other words, these agreements are not illegal, they are simply not enforceable in court if one of the parties does not fulfill its part of the agreement. Unlike the common law, even partial agreements of trade restriction or reasonable withholding under the Contracts Act are not valid. The delegitimization of a trade agreement is part of the history of the conflict between free markets and contractual freedom. Guaranteeing contractual freedom would be tantamount to legitimizeing trade restriction agreements, which would lead the parties to agree to limit competition. According to the Common Law, the current position stems from the case […] Marriage withholding agreement (section 26) […] Under Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements restricting marriage, with the exception of a minor, are unhinged. The Romans were the first to delegitimize agreements that respected marriage. The basis of the marriage limitation agreements, which are null and void, is that marriage is a sacrament and that nothing should encroach on the institution of marriage, not even 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 here that, according to the section, agreements limiting the marriage of a minor are not invalid. The Contracts Act was the first law enacted in India that explicitly invalidated such an agreement, which would, in fact, restrict the freedom of marriage to one of the parties. The basic idea of this provision was to ensure that citizens did not lose their right to marry after their election, which, by virtue of a contractual commitment made at any time, is an integral part of a civil society that is both personal and social. A similar attitude was also adopted in A. Suryanarayana Murthi v. P. Krishna Murthy, in which The Mitwitwens had reached an agreement to lose their share in the deceased husband`s property if they remarried, and this was held a valid contract, as the agreement did not directly limit the marriage.
«26. Marriage limitation agreement, which in some cases is annulled: according to the aforementioned provisions, Air Hostesses has withdrawn from its service in the following contingencies: (a) at the age of 35; b) at the time of marriage, if it took place within four years of service, and c) at the first pregnancy. The subject is a promise to give a girl in marriage. It is called «vagdan,» or gift by word, as a gift by the actual delivery of the bride; and its form is that of a promise made by the father or another guardian of the bride in favor of the bride to give him the bride in the marriage. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the terms of an agreement should not be construed as preventing the other party from seeking an appeal against the appeal. One can absolutely be deterred from marrying or marrying for a specified period of time or being partly deterred from marrying a person or class of people, and in one of the events mentioned above, the agreement is not valid. Section 26 does not distinguish between absolute and partial restrictions on the freedom of marriage. This has been strictly followed by the courts in various cases. In this case, the parties were businessmen in Calcutta. The defendant, Rajcoomar suffered a loss due to competition from the complainant and reached an agreement with the complainant that if he entered into his business there, he would have made all the advances he had made to his workers. When the defendant was unable to pay, the applicant filed an appeal to recover the amount, but failed to do so because it was a trade restriction agreement that was therefore not applicable in court.