Negative covenants in service contracts may operate during employment, but courts will not compel continuation of personal service.

Negative covenants requiring exclusive service and prohibiting competing employment were treated as operative during the subsistence of a valid contract, and no prima facie case was shown to treat them as unconscionable or unenforceable at the interim stage. The court also distinguished post-termination restraints, which require separate scrutiny. At the same time, broad interim relief that would effectively force a performer to leave rival employment and continue personal services was refused because it would amount to specific performance of a personal service contract. Only a limited temporary restraint was considered appropriate to preserve contractual discipline.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the negative covenants in the agreement restraining the presenter from working for a competing television channel during the subsistence of the contract were enforceable at the interim stage; (ii) Whether an interim injunction could be granted under the arbitration jurisdiction to restrain the respondent from continuing in rival employment or from providing similar services on television.

Issue (i): Whether the negative covenants in the agreement restraining the presenter from working for a competing television channel during the subsistence of the contract were enforceable at the interim stage.

Analysis: The agreement required exclusive service during the contractual term and contained covenants against competing employment, association of name or image with another channel, and solicitation of future engagement. The Court treated these stipulations, during subsistence of the contract, as part of the servant's duty of fidelity and distinguished them from post-termination restraints. On the material before it, the Court found no prima facie basis to hold the contract unconscionable, wholly one-sided, or unenforceable at this stage. It also held that the question whether the covenant might be void after termination could not be finally determined in these proceedings.

Conclusion: The negative covenants were held to be operative during the subsistence of the contract and not shown to be void at the interim stage.

Issue (ii): Whether an interim injunction could be granted under the arbitration jurisdiction to restrain the respondent from continuing in rival employment or from providing similar services on television.

Analysis: The Court held that the respondent had already joined another channel and could not be compelled to leave that employment and rejoin the petitioner, as such relief would amount to forcing specific performance of a personal service contract. In view of the bar under the Specific Relief Act against enforcing personal service contracts and the determinable nature of the arrangement, the prayer for broad injunctive relief restraining the respondent from working elsewhere could not be granted. However, to preserve the contractual discipline and mark the breach, a limited interim restraint for a short period was considered appropriate.

Conclusion: A broad injunction against rival employment was refused, but a limited temporary restraint was granted.

Final Conclusion: The petition was disposed of with only a limited interim restraint against the respondent, while the wider prayer to prevent him from continuing in rival employment was declined, leaving any further monetary or contractual relief to the appropriate proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A negative covenant restricting competing activity is ordinarily enforceable during the currency of a valid service contract, but a court will not grant an interim order amounting to specific performance of a personal service contract or compel continuation in employment; post-termination restraints stand on a different footing.

---