Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. It has also been argued that even provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act specifically states that the said agreement is restraining the defendant from exercise of lawful profession, trade or business and hence it has been argued that the plaint is required to be rejected. Moreover, it has also been argued that no basis of calculation of damages of Rs.4/- crore has been explained by the plaintiff in the plaint, and therefore, also the plaint is required to be dismissed. Learned advocate for the defendant has relied on the judgment reported in (2018) SCC OnLine Del 1132 in the case of Navigators Logistics Ltd. v. Kashif Qureshi and others decided on NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/242/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/06/2025 undefined 17.09.2018. Learned advocate for the defendant has also relied on the judgment reported in (1981) 2 SCC 246 in the case of Superintendence Company of India (P) Ltd. v. Krishan Murgai, (2006) AIR SCW 1751 in the case of Percept D' Mark (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ZaheerKhan & Another, (2021) LawSuit (Del) 1947 in the case of Chem Academy Pvt. Ltd. v. Sumit Mehta; Anoop Lamba, (2018) SCC OnLine Bom 2187 in the case of Tapas Kanti Mandal v. Cosmo Films Ltd., Aurangabad, AIR 2024 GUJARAT 61 in the case of Shaikh IsmailbhaiHushainbhai (Dead) By L.Rs. v. Vankar Ambalal Dhanabhai.

56. Learned advocate for the defendant has also relied on (2018) SCC OnLine Bom 2187 in the case of Tapas Kanti Mandal v. Cosmo Films Ltd., Aurangabad, in the said case, that case will have no bearing on the facts of the present case and in the said case there was no claim of restraining the person from divulging the confidential trade secrets and know-how.