Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. At this juncture, it would be relevant to mention that the Supreme Court time and again has struck down the clauses or the conditions contained in the service agreement, which were found to be unfair, unreasonable, unconscionable and opposed to the public policy. As stated earlier, pursuant to the G.R. dated 28.06.2013, the bonds are required to be executed by the students while taking the admission in PG Courses. The students have no choice but to sign in the agreement bond in the prescribed format. In the opinion of the Court such bond agreement could not be said to be have been executed by free will or consent of the students, in view of the provisions contained in the Indian Contract Act. As per Section 19A of the Indian Contract Act, when the consent to an agreement is caused by undue influence, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused. Subsection (1) of Section 16 defines "undue influence" to the effect that a contract is said to be induced by the "undue influence" where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other. Subsection (2) of Section 16 further inter alia provides that a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another, where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other. At this juncture, it would be also relevant to refer to Sections 23 of the Contract Act. Section 23 states that the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless inter alia the Court regards it as opposed to public policy. It also provides that every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful, is void.
"91. Is a contract of the type mentioned above to be adjudged voidable or void? If it was induced by undue influence, then under section 19A of the Indian Contract Act, it would be voidable. It is, however, rarely that contracts of the types to which the principle formulated by us above applies are induced by undue influence as defined by section 16(1) of the Indian Contract Act, even though at times they are between parties one of whom holds a real or apparent authority over the other. In the vast majority of cases, however, such contracts are entered into by the weaker party under pressure of circumstances, generally economic, which results in inequality of bargaining power. Such contracts will not fall within the four corners of the definition of "undue influence" given in section 16(1).

Further, the majority of such contracts are in a standard or prescribed form or consist of a set of rules. They are not contracts between individuals containing terms meant for those individuals alone, Contracts in prescribed or standard forms or which embody a set of rules as part of the contract are entered into by the party with superior bargaining power with a large number of persons who have far less bargaining power or no bargaining power at all. Such contracts which affect a large number of persons or a group or groups of persons, if they are unconscionable, unfair and unreasonable, are injurious to the public interest. To say that such a contract is only voidable would be to compel each person with whom the party with superior bargaining power had contracted to go to court to have the contract adjudged voidable. This would only result in multiplicity of litigation which no court should encourage and would also not be in the public interest. Such a contract or such a clause in a contract ought, therefore, to be adjudged void. While the law of contracts in England is mostly judge made, the law of contracts in India is enacted in a statute, namely, the Indian Contract Act, 1872. In order that such a contract should be void, it must fall under one of the relevant sections of the Indian Contract Act. The only relevant provision in the Indian Contract Act which can apply is section 23 when it states that "The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless . . . the court regards it as . . . opposed to public policy."