In a recent order9, our firm advised the client not to include such conditions in the document to be executed between the parties, which would be contrary to any law in India. The customer has been informed that, if the contract were to be enforced by a part of the same entity, the application of this contract or part thereof would not be possible in India if the agreement or its object or consideration thereof is contrary to law in India. In addition, despite the inclusion of disclosures, indemnifications, obligations, etc., in the contract and related transactional documents for the purposes of an act in India, the contract or part thereof is contrary to the statutes, rules, injunctions, statutes, directives, etc. in India. In this case, the treaty is not valid for the purposes of an action in India in the light of the provision(s) of the law that have been discussed above, since a party cannot accept an agreement contrary to the law. In addition, the advantage of the inclusion of the aforementioned disclaimer, indemnification and commitment in the contract only protects the interests of the foreign company (our client) in the place whose law has been made applicable to the contract. However, in the event of a breach of Indian law, such exclusion of liability, indemnification and obligation are not grounds for defence, measures taken in India available to the party claiming protection there. For this reason, the consideration may be insufficient from a commercial point of view, but for legal purposes: a party that already has a legal obligation to provide money, a good, a service or an indulgence does not make a counterpart if it simply promises to comply with this obligation. [32] [33] [34] This legal obligation may arise from the law or from an obligation under a previous contract.

A promise to pay part of a debt is not a sufficient counterpart to pay a larger debt. This is because there is no new counterpart for paying a smaller amount of money. Similarly, if a party is already legally required to do something, this cannot be a new consideration either. After all, it is something that has value in the eyes of the law. [4] There can never be a limitation of this huge concept to a simple payment of money. [5] This is why the Indian Contract Act uses the phrase „any act or abstinence“ to show what consideration is. [6] As a general rule, conditional consideration is valid consideration. . . .