https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102992 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. en-us Fri, 04 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Jul 2014 17:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102992 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 04 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102992