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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. CHANDURKAR, RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
Indus Power Tech Inc. Through its President – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Commercial Appeal (Lodging) No.26031 Of 2023 Along With Interim Application (Lodging) No.26098 Of 2023
Decided On : 17-10-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Anoshak Davar, Mr. Bhavesh Wadhwani, Ms. Kajal Gupta, Advocates, i/b M.V. Kini & Co.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Jehangir Jejeebhoy, Mr. Rahul Dwarkadas, Mr. Areez Gazdar, Ms. Shireen Mistri and Mr. George Reji, Advs, i/b Veritas Legal.

Non-compete clauses are valid during the term of an agreement but become void post-termination under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 37 - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Non-compete clause - Appeal against injunction restraining sourcing from RKFL post-termination of Master Supply Agreement (MSA) - Court held that non-compete clause cannot operate post-termination as it results in unlawful restraint of trade. (Paras 14, 15)

(B) Legal principles - Non-compete clauses are valid during the term of an agreement but become void post-termination under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. (Paras 10, 14)

(C) The court emphasized that a legal question can be raised at any stage if it does not require factual adjudication. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged an injunction preventing it from sourcing products from RKFL after the termination of the MSA by the Supplier. The Supplier had terminated the MSA citing various causes, and the Company sought to source products from RKFL, leading to the injunction.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the non-compete clause in the MSA could not be enforced post-termination, as it would violate Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Issues: The main issues were whether the non-compete clause was enforceable after the termination of the MSA and whether the Company could raise this legal question in appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the non-compete clause was valid only during the term of the MSA and could not be enforced post-termination, as it constituted an unlawful restraint of trade under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Result: The impugned judgment was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

JUDGMENT :

(A.S. Chandurkar, J.)

1] Admit. The Commercial Appeal is taken up for final disposal.

2] This appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act of 1996”) raises challenge to the judgment dated 08/08/2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act of 1996. By the said judgment, the appellant has been restrained from sourcing forgings/parts or products from an Indian entity, RKFL by granting an injunction in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Interim Application. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the respondent in the proceedings under Section 9 has filed this appeal.

3] Facts that are relevant for considering challenge are that on 31/03/2015 a Master Supply Agreement – MSA came to be executed between Indus Powertech Inc, the appellant, hereinafter referred to as “the Company” and Echjay Industries Private Limited, the respondent, hereinafter referred to as “the Supplier”. Under this MSA, the Supplier undertook to supply to the Company various products since the Company was specializing in supplying engineering components to North American manufacturers. Various terms and conditions were entered into. Clauses 3 and 15 to 17 being relevant are being reproduced hereunder:-

    “3. Non-compete/Non-solicitation :

    The Supplier agrees that the Company shall have exclusive rights to deal with all customers or clients introduced to it by the Company (hereinafter referred to as “Customers”) from within the geographical boundaries of United States of America, Canada and Mexico (hereinafter “Territory”). The current list of such Customers is detailed in Annexure-I and all transactions with the Customers in the Territory shall be through and shall accrue to the benefit of the Company. During the term of this Agreement and for a period of twenty four (24) months after termination of this Agreement for any reason, the Supplier shall not sell or solicit business from, or conduct business with the Customers. Similarly, the Company will also not source forgings from any other forging Company from India unless pursuant to Supplier’s refusal to quote or supply such items.”

    “15. Termination for Cause :

    Either party may terminate this Agreement prior to the expiration of the initial or any renewal term of this Agreement only for “cause” upon one hundred eighty (180) days’ prior written notice to the other Party setting forth the breach complained of. The term “cause” shall for purposes of the Agreement mean :

    a) Existence of a force majeure or other circumstance beyond a Party’s reasonable control which hinders that Party’s performance of its obligations under this Agreement for more than one hundred eighty (180) days.

    b) Breach of any material obligation under this Agreement;

    c) Conviction on a serious criminal offense.”

    “16. Termination without Cause :

    Either Party may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving an advance notice, in writing, to the other Party at- least three hundred sixty-five (365) days prior to intended date of such termination.”

    “17. Commission upon Termination: Upon termination of this Agreement by the Supplier for any reason, the Supplier agrees to continue to supply the Products and to pay any commission due or earned to the Company on all orders which are received by the Supplier for a period of two (2) years from the date of such termination.”

Parties acted in accordance with the MSA until the Supplier on 27/01/2023 exercised its right under Clause 15 of the MSA and served a notice to terminate the MSA by furnishing various causes for termination with which we are presently not concerned. The Supplier thereafter filed Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No.16800 of 2023 on 21/06/2023 seeking an order of injunction as per Clause 3 of the MSA so as to restrain the Company from sourcing forgings/engineering components, etc from an Indian entity, RKFL or its subsidiaries and from carrying out business either directly or indirectl

    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 Back to top