Negative covenant in a franchise agreement upheld where it operated only during the contract and protected goodwill and distribution rights.

The 1994 registered-user arrangement did not supersede the 1993 franchise agreement or reduce the contractual termination notice, because the two instruments served different purposes and no written mutual variation was shown. A negative covenant barring the bottler from competing during the subsistence of the agreement was not a restraint of trade under section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, since it operated only while the contract remained in force and protected goodwill and distribution rights. The share-transfer clause was treated as regulating the contractual relationship, not as prohibiting transfer of shares under company law. Applying the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury tests, the interim injunction was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the 1994 agreement superseded the 1993 agreement or altered the notice period for termination of the 1993 agreement; (ii) Whether the negative covenant restraining the bottler from dealing with competing products during the subsistence of the agreement was void as being in restraint of trade; (iii) Whether the clause relating to transfer of shares and consequential discontinuance of supply imposed an unenforceable restraint; and (iv) Whether interlocutory injunction enforcing the negative covenant was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the 1994 agreement superseded the 1993 agreement or altered the notice period for termination of the 1993 agreement

Analysis: The 1993 agreement was treated as a common-law franchise/licence containing wider commercial and distributive obligations, while the 1994 agreement was held to be a statutory arrangement executed for registration of the bottler as a registered user under section 49 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 read with rule 83 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959. The two agreements served different purposes and the later agreement did not contain language wiping out the earlier one. The alleged reduction of the one-year termination notice to ninety days was also not established by mutual consent in writing.

Conclusion: The 1994 agreement did not supersede the 1993 agreement, and the 1993 agreement continued to require one year's notice for termination.

Issue (ii): Whether the negative covenant restraining the bottler from dealing with competing products during the subsistence of the agreement was void as being in restraint of trade

Analysis: The restraint operated only during the currency of the agreement, not after its termination. A covenant that is incidental to a commercial franchise arrangement and aimed at promoting the grantor's trade during the subsistence of the contract is not treated as a restraint of trade within section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The covenant was found to facilitate distribution, preserve goodwill, and regulate the contractual relationship while the agreement remained alive.

Conclusion: The negative covenant was not void under section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Issue (iii): Whether the clause relating to transfer of shares and consequential discontinuance of supply imposed an unenforceable restraint

Analysis: The share-transfer stipulation was construed as governing the contractual relationship between the parties and not as directly restraining shareholders who were not parties to the agreement. On an effective transfer of control, the clause only enabled termination of the agreement and discontinuance of supply. It did not invalidate the shareholders' right to transfer shares under company law.

Conclusion: The clause was not void as an unlawful restraint and did not preclude Coca Cola from invoking the contractual remedies.

Issue (iv): Whether interlocutory injunction enforcing the negative covenant was justified

Analysis: The Court applied the settled tests for interim injunction: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The control of the bottling plants had passed to Pepsi-linked interests, creating a real risk that Coca Cola's trade marks, goodwill, and market position would be harmed. The bottler's own conduct in transferring control without consent and then seeking to avoid the contractual consequences weighed against relief. The competing hardship to the bottler was held compensable in damages under the undertaking to be furnished by Coca Cola.

Conclusion: The grant of interim injunction was justified and required no interference.

Final Conclusion: The contractual restraints were upheld, the 1993 agreement remained operative, and the interlocutory injunction restraining competing use of the plants was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A covenant restricting competitive activity only during the subsistence of a commercial franchise arrangement, and designed to promote the grantor's trade and goodwill, is not a restraint of trade under section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

---