Injunction against inducement of breach of contract rejected where necessary property owners were not impleaded and restraint was overbroad.

A suit seeking an injunction to prevent a competitor from inducing breach of contract and from dealing with properties across India was held not maintainable on the pleaded facts. The Delhi HC found that the alleged arrangements were with developers or owners who were necessary parties, because any claim for breach had to be pursued against the contracting parties through appropriate contractual remedies such as specific performance, possession, or damages. The court also treated the proposed nationwide restraint as vague and overbroad, since it would operate as a blanket restriction on competition and on non-parties' freedom to deal with their properties. The claimed tort remedy could not be used to impose a restraint barred by contract law and public policy.

---

---

Issues: Whether a suit seeking injunction to restrain a competitor from inducing breach of the plaintiff's contracts and from dealing with properties across India, without impleading the contracting property owners, was maintainable and enforceable in law.

Analysis: The plaint proceeded on the premise that the plaintiff had binding arrangements with developers or owners of specific properties and that the defendant was causing or threatening breach of those arrangements. On the plaintiff's own showing, the appropriate remedies lay against the contracting parties by way of specific performance, possession, or damages, depending on the nature of the arrangement. In the absence of the developers or owners, the Court could not determine the alleged breach, and they were necessary parties. The wide injunction sought across India was also vague and would operate as a blanket restraint on competition and on the freedom of non-parties to deal with their properties. The Court further held that the alleged tort of inducement to breach contract or unlawful interference with business could not be used in India to create a restraint that the law of contract itself does not permit, particularly in view of the statutory policy embodied in Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the constitutional protection of the right to carry on trade or business.

Conclusion: The suit was not maintainable on the pleaded facts and the relief claimed was barred by law; the claim against the defendant failed.

---