https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158352 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. en-us Tue, 12 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158352 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 12 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158352