Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.33 seconds)
Parmod Kumar Yadav vs M/S Future Soft (India) Pvt. Ltd on 30 November, 2013 cites

Superintendence Company Of India (P) ... vs Krishan Murgai on 9 May, 1980

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Superintendence Company of India (P) Ltd. vs. Krishan Murgai (Supra) took this distinction to its logical conclusion and held that, "Under Section 27 of the Contract Act, a service covenant extended beyond the termination of the service is void". It was further held that "the court's, therefor, view with disfavour a restrictive covenant by an employee not to engage in a business similar to or competitive with that of the employer after the termination of his contract of employment".
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 67 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

High Polymer Labs. Pvt. Ltd. vs R.K. Mutreja And Anr. on 7 September, 1982

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 High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1