https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198482 A post-employment restraint preventing employees from joining a competitor after leaving service was held void and unenforceable under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and therefore could not be enforced by injunction. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not established a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury to justify interim equitable relief. Allegations of inducement and conspiracy were disputed on rival facts, making final findings unsafe at the interlocutory stage. Injunctive relief was declined because the covenant was contrary to public policy and could not restrain lawful employment mobility or business competition. en-us Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Feb 2018 10:43:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198482 A post-employment restraint preventing employees from joining a competitor after leaving service was held void and unenforceable under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and therefore could not be enforced by injunction. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not established a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury to justify interim equitable relief. Allegations of inducement and conspiracy were disputed on rival facts, making final findings unsafe at the interlocutory stage. Injunctive relief was declined because the covenant was contrary to public policy and could not restrain lawful employment mobility or business competition. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198482