The judgment establishes the importance of personal liberty, fundamental duties, and individual excellence in the context of enforcing contractual obligations and the restraint of lawful professions.

JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

IA No.1192/2019 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CS(OS) 43/2019 & IA No. 1191/2019 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC)

3. The plaintiff, a Television News Channel, has instituted this suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, a news broadcaster with the plaintiff since the year 2004, from taking up similar work with any other television channel during the term till 30th November, 2019 of her Agreement with the plaintiff and / or from allowing her name, image or voice to be associated with any other news channel; and for recovery of Rs.2,00,10,000/- as damages.

4. The suit is accompanied with an application for interim relief.

5. The counsel for the defendant appears on seeing the matter in the cause list and the senior counsel for the defendant has also been heard in opposition to the ad interim injunction sought by the plaintiff.

6. The question for consideration is the same as has been repeatedly coming up before Courts for over a century, i.e. of enforcement of negative covenant not to serve a competitor, in a contract of personal service, performance of which is dependent on personal qualifications of the parties.

7. The plaintiff claims to have spent large sums of money and resources in grooming the defendant and in building the image of the defendant for last fourteen years, as one of the prominent faces of the plaintiff’s news channel. The plaintiff, for the said purpose has since 1st December, 2004 been entering into successive agreements with the defendant, of three years each and each of which agreement contains a negative covenant whereunder the defendant has agreed to during the term of agreement not associate with any other competing channel. The defendant has also agreed with the plaintiff that while the plaintiff can terminate the employment of the defendant, the defendant cannot, save for medical reasons.

8. The senior counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the defendant, since about mid-December, 2018, has been feigning excuses for leaving the employment of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has now learnt that the defendant intends to be the face and broadcaster of a competing news channel to be launched w.e.f. 25th January, 2019. Hence this suit.

9. The senior counsel for the plaintiff has drawn attention to paras 53,54, 56 and 58 of Wipro Ltd. Vs. Beckman Coulter International S.A. (2006) 131 DLT 681 and para 17 of Niranjan Shankar Golikari Vs. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. AIR 1967 SC 1098 to contend that owing to the negative covenant in the contract between the parties, the defendant is liable to be restrained till 30th November, 2019 i.e. till the last date of the term of the agreement with the plaintiff, from joining / serving any other news channel. It is contended, that the plaintiff, though may not be willing to take a chance of allowing the defendant to present the news on the channel of the plaintiff, owing to the controversy which is arisen between the parties, but is willing to continue to pay the emoluments agreed to be paid under the Agreement, to the defendant, subject to the defendant agreeing not to and/or being restrained from so associating with a competing news channel. Offer is also made, that the defendant can be engaged in back stage activities other than of being the news presenter/face of the channel, either in the plaintiff or even in the competing news channel. It is contended that it has been the consistent view, that such a negative covenant can be enforced during the term of the agreement.

10. Per contra, the senior counsel for the defendant has contended, that the defendant resigned from the employment of the plaintiff on 13th December, 2018 and this suit has been filed after a delay of about 1½ months. It is also informed that the defendant, on 14th January, 2019 has joined the other news channel and the Court now cannot now order status quo ante. Reliance in this regard is place