SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 831

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JOYMALYA BAGCHI
Vijaya Bank – Appellant
Versus
Prashant B Narnaware – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Adv. Mr. Likivi K Jakhalu, Adv. Mr. Deepanjal Choudhary, Adv. M/S. Mitter & Mitter Co., AOR Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sushant Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Lomes, Adv. Mr. Prithvi Yadav, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Adv. Mr. Likivi K Jakhalu, Adv. Mr. Deepanjal Choudhary, Adv. M/S. Mitter & Mitter Co., AOR Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Ms. Shwetal, Adv. Mr. Aditya Khanna, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR Mr. Surya Prakash, Adv. Ms. Divya Singh Pundir, Adv. Mr. Devesh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Shubhra Kapur, Adv. Mr. Sanjiv Goel, Adv. Mr. Annu Mishra, Adv.

Table of Content
1. challenge to liquidated damages clause (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. allegations of constitutional violations (Para 8)
3. validity of restrictive covenants (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16)
4. enforceability of restrictive covenants. (Para 15)
5. contracts and public policy concerns (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. liquidated damages necessity (Para 27 , 28 , 30 , 31)
7. liquidated damages due to premature resignations. (Para 29)
8. distinction from related case law (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
9. ruling on enforceability of clause (Para 35)
10. final order on appeals (Para 36 , 37)

JUDGMENT

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11708 of 2016

1. Appellants have challenged judgment and order dated 20.08.2014 passed by the High Court quashing clause 11(k) of the appointment letter whereby the respondent-employee [Hereinafter, respondent] was required to pay liquidated damages of Rs. 2 lakhs in the event of leaving employment of the first appellant-bank [Hereinafter, appellant-bank] prior to three years and consequentially the appellant-bank was directed to refund the said sum to the respondent.

2. In 1999, respondent had joined the appellant-bank as a Probationary Assistant Man

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                Please visit our Training & Support
                Center or Contact Us for assistance

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
                whatsapp-icon Back to top