https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381496 The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the termination of the Franchise Agreement by the respondents. It found the non-compete clause unenforceable post-termination and rejected claims of business diversion and mismanagement. The demand for compensation was deemed unsupported, and the use of the title "Ex-Director" by the respondents was considered factual. The appeal was rejected with no order as to costs. en-us Thu, 14 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Aug 2019 15:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381496 The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the termination of the Franchise Agreement by the respondents. It found the non-compete clause unenforceable post-termination and rejected claims of business diversion and mismanagement. The demand for compensation was deemed unsupported, and the use of the title "Ex-Director" by the respondents was considered factual. The appeal was rejected with no order as to costs. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 14 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381496