$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) (COMM) 7/2023 & CM APPLs. 2067/2023 AND 2070/2023 GLOBAL MUSIC JUNCTION PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Yashvardhan, Ms. Rhia Marshall, Ms. Kritika Nagpal, Ms.Smita Kant, Mr.

Tarun Bhushan, Mr. PranayMohan Govil, Ms. Priyanka Raj and Ms. Sanya Kumar, Advocates.

versus SHATRUGHAN KUMAR AKA KHESARI LAL YADAV & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Mr.Gaurav Chaudhry, Mr. Randhir Singh, Mr.

Priyanshu Malik, Mr. Rahul Rana, Mr.

Pulkit Chadha, Mr.Aditya Kumar Yadav, Mr.Raj Karan Sharma, Mr.Priyanshu Malik and Mr.Arpit Bamal, Advocates for R-1.

Mr. Akhand Singh, Mr. Abhinandan Gautam, Ms. Samridhi Dobhal and Ms.

Deeksha Dwivedi, Advocates for R-5. Mr. Vihan Dang, Ms. Aditi Umapathy and Ms. Pragya Jain, Advocates for R-6.

Reserved on : 12^th July, 2023 % Date of Decision: 05^th September, 2023 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE Signature Not Verified FAO(OS)(COMM)7/2023 Page1of56 Digitally Signed By:JASWANT TABLE OFCONTENTS Para Nos.

APPEAL…………..................…………………….........…………….…….……………...….…......1-2 FACTS.....................................................................................................................................3-7 ARGUMENTSBYLEARNEDCOUNSELFORTHEAPPELLANT/PLAINTIFF….............………..........8-18 ARGUMENTS BYLEARNEDCOUNSELFORTHERESPONDENTNO.1/DEFENDANTNO.6............19-28 Court’sReasoning.............................................................................................................29-89 AmendmentAct2018hasmadespecificperformanceofacontract ageneralruleratherthananexception.Thelegislativeshiftistowards strongerenforcementof contracts…………………...................…………………………….29-42 TheOriginalAgreement&Addendumarenotdeterminable…………………………….….43-45 Section14ofAct,1963isinapplicableastheAppellant isenforcinganegativecovenantonly....………..……………….....…....................….…......46-50 Theuniformandconsistentpracticeof Courtshasbeentoenforce anegative covenantinanagreement……......................................………………………..….….......….51-56 Section27appliesonlytorestrictionsinPostContractperiod.........….............................57-61 Damagesarenotanadequateremedy............…………………………...............................62-65 Inviewoftheavermentsintheplaint,theAppellant-Plaintiff’ssuit cannotbedismissedonlackofterritorialjurisdiction.......................................................66-69 InviewofthedefencethattheAgreementandAddendumarevitiated byfraud,themattercannotbereferredtoarbitration.…........................…………............70-73 Theagreementsbetweenthepartiesareneither‘Excessivelyonesided’

northeyimposea‘bondage’.............................................................................................74-76 PrimafacieconductoftheRespondentNo.1/DefendantNo.6isneither honestnorfair..................................................................................….....………...,..........77-80 Enforcingnegativecovenant(Clause3.5ofAddendum)willneitherrender RespondentNo.1idlenorcompelhimtoexclusivelyworkwiththeAppellant……………81-83 ContentionthatAddendumwasneveracteduponisnotcorrect..…......................................84 NoallegationthatAppellant/Plaintiffbreachedeitherthe Original AgreementorAddendum……….............................................................................…….....….85 Conclusion...............................................................................................................……...86-89 Signature Not Verified FAO(OS)(COMM)7/2023 Page2of56 Digitally Signed By:JASWANT

J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN, J:

1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the order/ judgment dated 6^th January, 2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CS(COMM) No. 715 of 2022, whereby the application of the Respondent No.1/ Defendant No.6 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC, 1908 has been allowed and the application filed by the Appellant/ Plai