Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)Superintendence Company Of India (P) ... vs Krishan Murgai on 9 May, 1980
Thus it is clear the refusal to reopen the question and consider the validity of these ancient authorities cannot be construed that these decisions are shaken in any way by the judgment in Superintendence Co., of India v. Krishna Murgai (supra). Hence I have no hesitation to hold that a restrictive covenant extended beyond the termination of service is hit by S. 27 of the Act.
Niranjan Shankar Golikari vs The Century Spinning And Mfg. Co. Ltd on 17 January, 1967
13. The restrictive covenant complained in that case was during the period of employment.
Union Of India & Ors vs M/S. Rai Bahadur Shree Ram Durga Prasad ... on 19 November, 1968
Vide Prem Prakash v. Union of India and Union of India v. Messrs. C. L. Vareed Company (I.L.R. 1969(2) Kerala 163). Further it is also not possible for the learned counsel for the appellant to argue that in view of the fact that minority of judges expressly chosen not to express an opinion, the question is res-integra. In fact what was argued before the Supreme Court was that the view of the several High Courts expressing that the post service restrictive covenant is void requires reconsideration and the Supreme Court had not so far considered this question when the law commission also recommended change of law by amending S. 27 and the time is ripe to consider the question.
1