<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2007 (3) TMI 795 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197521</link>
    <description>A shareholder agreement&#039;s non-compete covenant is described as a contractual restraint that can remain enforceable between the parties even if it is not repeated in the articles of association, provided it is otherwise lawful and subsisting. The document also states that frustration under the Contract Act requires supervening impossibility or illegality, and that sickness, BIFR proceedings, or commercial difficulty do not by themselves discharge contractual obligations. It further notes that section 9 interim protection may restrain a proposed competing venture where there is a prima facie non-compete right, risk of loss of goodwill and market share, and damages would not be an adequate remedy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2021 15:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=503715" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (3) TMI 795 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197521</link>
      <description>A shareholder agreement&#039;s non-compete covenant is described as a contractual restraint that can remain enforceable between the parties even if it is not repeated in the articles of association, provided it is otherwise lawful and subsisting. The document also states that frustration under the Contract Act requires supervening impossibility or illegality, and that sickness, BIFR proceedings, or commercial difficulty do not by themselves discharge contractual obligations. It further notes that section 9 interim protection may restrain a proposed competing venture where there is a prima facie non-compete right, risk of loss of goodwill and market share, and damages would not be an adequate remedy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197521</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>