<?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>2006 (7) TMI 702 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197870</link>
    <description>A post-termination non-solicitation covenant between commercial parties was treated as enforceable and not void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act because it restrained only the contracting parties from soliciting, inducing or encouraging each other&#039;s employees for a limited period, without directly prohibiting employees from changing jobs. However, the court held that this restraint could not be extended into an injunction barring the respondent from employing those employees, as that would indirectly create an impermissible post-employment restraint. Relief was therefore confined to restraining further solicitation, while any past breach was left to be pursued as damages in arbitration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2018 12:23:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504869" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 702 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197870</link>
      <description>A post-termination non-solicitation covenant between commercial parties was treated as enforceable and not void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act because it restrained only the contracting parties from soliciting, inducing or encouraging each other&#039;s employees for a limited period, without directly prohibiting employees from changing jobs. However, the court held that this restraint could not be extended into an injunction barring the respondent from employing those employees, as that would indirectly create an impermissible post-employment restraint. Relief was therefore confined to restraining further solicitation, while any past breach was left to be pursued as damages in arbitration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197870</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>