Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.27 seconds)

Parmod Kumar Yadav vs M/S Future Soft (India) Pvt. Ltd on 30 November, 2013

19. Hon'ble High Court in High Polymer Labs Pvt. Ltd. vs. R.K.Mutreja and Anr (Supra) laid down in para 14, "To my mind, the law laid down by the Supreme Court clearly is that any contract in restraint of trade after the period of employment of service is void as vocative of Section 27 of the Contract Act but that such restrictive covenant during the period of employment is binding unless it is unconscionable, unreasonable, excessively harsh or one sided". Hon'ble High Court further laid in para 16 as under:­ "I am, Therefore, of the view that Section 27 of the Contract Act is applicable when there is a contract in rest trait of trade after the cessation of employment whether by resignation or in any other manner and such a restrictive covenant is void and unenforceable. However, such a restrictive covenant is enforceable and is not hit by Section 27 of the Contract Act if the same is during the continuance of service of a whole­time employee provided that such a, covenant or contract is neither unreasonable nor unconscionable nor excessively harsh nor one­sided."
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Stonex India Pvt. Ltd vs Ms. Sakshi Bhardwaj on 15 December, 2021

9. Section 27 of the Contract Act, 1872, prohibits a contract that debars an employee from carrying on an employment with a competitor after serving an employer, with whom the employment bond has been signed. The same preposition of law has been affirmed in a case titled as "High Polymers Labs Pvt. Ltd. Vs R. K. Mutreja, ILR 1983 Delhi 213 and in case titled as "Le Passage to India Tours vs Deepak Bhatnagar, decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi".
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1