Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur, 1993 Cr. L.J. 1191-1197, 1198 [Raj.] – Object or consideration of public order Was illegal and null and void – What could be better and what could be more may be an admission that the consideration or subject matter of the compound interest rate agreement was the failure of the board of directors to sue the petitioning company for an offence under section 39 of the Act, and that the board of directors has turned the offence into a source of profit or benefit to itself. That recital or object is manifestly contrary to public policy, with the result that the agreement on the compound interest rate referred to in Article 23 of the Law is unlawful and inconclusive. It is not enforceable against the petitioners` society. 10. In addition, section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act states that if the terms of such a contract, concession or other disposition of ownership or business that is to be legally reduced to the form of a document have not been proved in accordance with the last section, no evidence of an oral agreement or statement may be admitted. between the parties to such an act or their stakeholders, in order to contradict, vary, supplement or be deduced from its conditions. However, its reservation (2) is an exception to the fact that, if there is a separate oral agreement on a matter in which the document remains silent and the conditions are inconsistent, the oral agreement may be considered valid. In addition, reservation (3) is an exception to the fact that, if there is a separate oral agreement which constitutes a condition precedent for the application of an obligation under such a contract, an oral agreement may also be proved. The article examined various principles set out in the provision, as well as case law, in order to determine the judicial position on illegal contracts. . .