Nur Ali Dubash v Abdul Ali (1892): Calcutta High Court on difference between partial and total restrain of trade.

CASE NAME Nur Ali Dubash v Abdul Ali, (1892) ILR 19 Cal 765
COURT Before the High Court of Calcutta
DECIDED ON March 4, 1892
BENCH Justice Pigot  and Justice Macpherson
AUTHOR OF THE JUDGEMENT Justice PA Macpherson
ABSTRACT

In the present case, there was an agreement between parties with regards to restraint of trade. Restraint of trade is dealt under section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Restraint of any lawful profession or business or trade of any kind is considered as void under law. However, with changing times, the courts have considered partial restraint of trade to be valid under the law if found to be reasonable.

According to the facts of the present case, the court found that the partial restraint observed in the agreement was not unreasonable and thus void.

AUTHOR OF THE BRIEF Aarsh Chokshi, Student at Gujarat National Law University.
KEYWORDS Section 27-Indian Contract Act, Partial Restraint of trade, Total Restraint of trade.

(more…)

Continue Reading

The expression “capital employed in the business of the company” did not include the “premium amount” [M/s Berger Paints India Ltd. V/s C.I.T., Delhi-V]

M/s Berger Paints India Ltd. V/s C.I.T., Delhi-V Before The Supreme Court of India Author of the judgement- Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.- Counsel for the appellant-Company- Mr Radha Shyam Jena Counsel for the respondent- Mr Mukul Rohtagi, learned Attorney General. Bench: R.K.…

Continue Reading
Close Menu