<?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>1965 (4) TMI 134 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287861</link>
    <description>The Court held that negative stipulations in contracts of personal service are valid if they operate only during the contract period, not constituting a restraint of trade. The Court emphasized the discretionary nature of granting injunctions and considered public policy against compelling involuntary work. It ruled that enforcing the negative stipulation was not necessary for the plaintiffs&#039; protection, dismissing the appeal and denying the injunction sought.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 May 2020 10:14:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=612292" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (4) TMI 134 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287861</link>
      <description>The Court held that negative stipulations in contracts of personal service are valid if they operate only during the contract period, not constituting a restraint of trade. The Court emphasized the discretionary nature of granting injunctions and considered public policy against compelling involuntary work. It ruled that enforcing the negative stipulation was not necessary for the plaintiffs&#039; protection, dismissing the appeal and denying the injunction sought.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287861</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>