AIR 1967 SUPREME COURT 1098 ::14 FacLR 337 ::1967 LabLJ 743 ::31 FJR 332 ::1967 Mah LJ 606 ::1967 MPLJ 454 ::1967 2 SCR 378 ::1967 2 SCJ 317 ::1969 Bom LR 535 ::1967 (1) SCWR 832

Supreme Court Of India

(From Bombay)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): R. S. Bachawat, J. M. Shelat , JJ

(A) Contract Act (9 of 1872) , S.27— Agreement challenged on ground of its being a restraint of trade - Onus is upon party supporting contract to show that restraint is reasonably necessary to protect his interests - Once, this onus is discharged, onus of showing that restraint is nevertheless injurious to the public is upon party attacking contract. 1913 AC 724 and 1913 AC 781 (796) and Cheshire's Law of Contract (6th ed.) P. 328, Rel. on. Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.101, S.102, S.103, S.104— (Para 10) (B) Contract Act (9 of 1872) , S.27— Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) , S.42— Service contract-Negative covenant that employee would not, during contract period, engage in trade or business or would not get himself employed by any other master for whom he would perform similar or substantially similar duties, is not restraint of trade ;unless contract is unconscionable or excessively harsh or onesided - Held that injunction issued against appellant restricted as to time, nature of employment and as to area could not be said to be too wide, or unreasonable or unnecessary for protection of interests of respondent. ^ Case law Ref.First Appeal No. 526 of 1965 D/-28-4-1966 (Bom.) Affirmed. (Para 15 16) ....