Public policy and severability of contracts: litigation financing advance held irrecoverable under an unlawful bargain.

A contract made to use influence with public authorities to secure success in litigation was held void as opposed to public policy. The claimant's financing advance and the promised share in the estate formed one indivisible bargain, so the payment could not be severed and treated as an independent loan. Restitution provisions did not assist because the agreement's unlawful object made it unenforceable, and the advance was not recoverable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the claimant could recover Rs. 75,000 advanced under an agreement found to be opposed to public policy, and whether that advance was severable from the rest of the bargain.

Analysis: The advance was made pursuant to a single integrated arrangement by which the claimant was to finance the litigation and receive a share in the estate if the claim succeeded. The contract was found to have been entered into for the purpose of using influence with public authorities to secure the claim, making the object of the agreement contrary to public policy. Since the advance and the promised share formed inseparable parts of one contract, the payment could not be treated as an independent, recoverable loan. The provisions relating to unlawful agreements and restitution did not assist the claimant because the agreement itself was void for its unlawful object.

Conclusion: The claimant was not entitled to recover the Rs. 75,000, and the agreement was unenforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: A contract entered into to use influence with authorities to procure success in litigation is void as being opposed to public policy, and where the financing and the promised return form one indivisible bargain, the advance is not separately recoverable.

---