https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460849 A post-termination covenant restraining dealings in PVP-I was treated as a restraint of trade and found unenforceable because it was unreasonable and contrary to section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The foreign-law affidavit relied on to support Swiss law was considered too unclear and incomplete to prove foreign law reliably, so Indian contract law applied. On construction of the amended contract, the restraint was confined to the Mundidone brand of PVP-I rather than PVP-I generally, but that interpretation did not save the covenant. The application was dismissed with costs. en-us Tue, 11 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Feb 2025 16:04:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460849 A post-termination covenant restraining dealings in PVP-I was treated as a restraint of trade and found unenforceable because it was unreasonable and contrary to section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The foreign-law affidavit relied on to support Swiss law was considered too unclear and incomplete to prove foreign law reliably, so Indian contract law applied. On construction of the amended contract, the restraint was confined to the Mundidone brand of PVP-I rather than PVP-I generally, but that interpretation did not save the covenant. The application was dismissed with costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 11 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460849