https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301122 A suit seeking an injunction to prevent a competitor from inducing breach of contract and from dealing with properties across India was held not maintainable on the pleaded facts. The Delhi HC found that the alleged arrangements were with developers or owners who were necessary parties, because any claim for breach had to be pursued against the contracting parties through appropriate contractual remedies such as specific performance, possession, or damages. The court also treated the proposed nationwide restraint as vague and overbroad, since it would operate as a blanket restriction on competition and on non-parties' freedom to deal with their properties. The claimed tort remedy could not be used to impose a restraint barred by contract law and public policy. en-us Mon, 18 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Mar 2022 07:46:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301122 A suit seeking an injunction to prevent a competitor from inducing breach of contract and from dealing with properties across India was held not maintainable on the pleaded facts. The Delhi HC found that the alleged arrangements were with developers or owners who were necessary parties, because any claim for breach had to be pursued against the contracting parties through appropriate contractual remedies such as specific performance, possession, or damages. The court also treated the proposed nationwide restraint as vague and overbroad, since it would operate as a blanket restriction on competition and on non-parties' freedom to deal with their properties. The claimed tort remedy could not be used to impose a restraint barred by contract law and public policy. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 18 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301122