https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198194 A manager's authority to bind the company was established prima facie from earlier written authorisation, and no prior revocation was shown. An express negative covenant in the contract was enforceable by injunction under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the mere fact that loss could be monetarily assessed did not bar relief. The balance of convenience supported interlocutory protection because continued breach would defeat the plaintiff's contractual restraint before trial. A later letter was treated as continuing, not superseding, the earlier arrangement. The interlocutory injunction was therefore properly granted and confirmed. en-us Fri, 03 Oct 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198194 A manager's authority to bind the company was established prima facie from earlier written authorisation, and no prior revocation was shown. An express negative covenant in the contract was enforceable by injunction under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the mere fact that loss could be monetarily assessed did not bar relief. The balance of convenience supported interlocutory protection because continued breach would defeat the plaintiff's contractual restraint before trial. A later letter was treated as continuing, not superseding, the earlier arrangement. The interlocutory injunction was therefore properly granted and confirmed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 03 Oct 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198194