Get Adobe Flash player
Our News by Month

More recently, in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Limited v. KS Infraspace LLP Limited,[4] the Supreme Court considered the validity of the parties` agreements on a combination of e-mail and WhatsApp communications. The decisive conclusion was the nature and language of the correspondences, which were not directly synonymous with confirmation, and the agreement was therefore not valid. However, the means of communication are not a problem, the court said, according to which “WhatsApp messages, which end virtual oral communications, objects of evidence as to their meaning and content must be proven during the trial by obtaining evidence and cross-checking.” “E-mails and WhatsApp messages must be read and understood cumulatively to decrypt whether or not there has been a contract. The use of the word “final draft” in the email… cannot be determinative of itself (of offer or acceptance). [2] If an agreement is illegal, immoral or contrary to public order, that agreement becomes an invalid contract. Although Section 27 of the Act clearly states that any non-competition agreement is null and clear and does not engage the contracting parties, several decisions stipulate that a negative clause would not be considered reluctant to trade in an agreement to promote trade. The provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) provide electronic legal recognition (e-contract), in particular section 10-A of the Human Rights Act, which states that the Indian Contract Act 1872, Section 2,e, defines an agreement as “any promise and set of promises to be considered against each other is an agreement.” Indian Trade and Employment Restrictions Act Indian contract law requires that an agreement excluding any person from the exercise of a profession, profession or legal activity be non-bitter. Under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 (hereafter the Act), agreements that provide for trade or trade restrictions are unfair because they impose a disproportionate restriction on the individual liberty of the contractor. Therefore, the Act invalidates all trade restrictions, whether general or partial, unless it is covered by the exception of this section. Section 85A of the Evidence Act: “The Court considers that any electronic protocol purporting to be an agreement containing the [electronic] signature of the parties was concluded by affixing the [electronic signature] of the parties.” In the case of a combined interpretation of national and international laws, it can be said that electronic agreements are valid and applicable in the courts, as the risk associated with electronic signatures is high, and in large-scale transactions, the parties always insist on damp signatures for physical agreements. For fintech companies that have aggressively used electronic documentation and execution to avoid fraud or tampering, electronic signatures can be used with an additional level of security. B, for example by checking the electronic signature by sending an OTP to the registered mobile phone number or by using geo-location to record the IP address or any other mechanism to track the details of the electronic device from which the electronic signature was affixed.

Such a two-step verification procedure also guarantees the authenticity of the signatory. E-commerce has expanded many wrinkles in recent years and, with the pace accelerating it, it is expected to continue to grow because it is more convenient and accessible. However, there are several legal issues related to the training and validity of electronic transactions, such as online contracts and enforcement issues, which are addressed below. The Information Technology Act not only recognizes the validity of e-mail contracts, but has also legally recognized digital signatures (also known as electronic signatures).