One of the principles is that a gentleman does not have the right to prevent his employee from offering competition after the termination of his employment relationship, but that he is entitled to adequate protection against the exploitation of trade secrets. In Mason v. Provident Clothing Co, the House of Lords did not allow an employer to restrict its advertiser for a period of three years after leaving service. Viscount HALDANE LC indicated that the ability to advertise is a natural gift and is not due to specific training from the employer. If they had merely asked him not to attach himself to paintings in the field in which he had actually contributed to the construction of the goodwill of their enterprise or in a field limited to places where the knowledge he had acquired in his employment could clearly have been used to their detriment, they would have obtained the right to detain him within those borders. On the other hand, to Fitch v. Dewes, the House of Lords allowed an alliance by which a lawyer was recycled by practice within 7 miles of the city, which was reasonably necessary to protect the interests of both parties. But under no circumstances would the court allow covenants against competitions. A Attwood v. Lamont, the employer, ran several departments related to sewing, etc. And the employee was just the superintendent of sewing.
The deal with him was that after he stopped being an employee, he wouldn`t commit in 10 miles to one of the employer-run businesses in addition to sewing. The Court of Appeal found not only that the agreement was abnormally broad, but also that it was competitive. YOUNGER LJ quoted the following passage from LORD PRAKER`s speech to Morris v. Saxelby. The reason and the only reason for maintaining such a restriction on the part of a worker is that the employer has a certain right of decency, whether in the type of business relationship or in the nature of trade secrets, to protect such restrictions, taking into account the duties of a reasonably necessary worker. Such a restriction has never been maintained if it was intended only to prevent competition or to use the personal skills and knowledge acquired by the worker in his employer`s undertaking. CONCLUSION; In its 13th Report of 1958, the Power Commission of India strongly recommended that Section 27 be amended, as the restrictions it imposes on Indian transactions and contracts are commercially undesirable. More than five decades after this report and given the reluctance of legislation to accept the Commission`s recommendation, it would appear that an amendment is not the only way to make India`s position on trade restrictions commercially reasonable and that the law, in its current form, also allows and requires a “relevance” study. Whenever the issue of trade restriction arises in the Indian context, the first aspect that is emphasized is that India`s position differs from customary law by excluding an adequacy survey. Therefore, the researcher wishes to conclude that instead, only Section 27 of the Indian Contracts Act must be passed to include “adequacy”. # Gujarat Bottling co Ltd v.
Coca Cola Co, (1995) 5 SCC 545: (1995)84 Comp Cas 618. # Sandhya Organic Chemicals p Ltd v. United Phosphorus Ltd, AIR 1998 Guj 177, where the Tribunal established that the principle of English Comman law can be applied if the legal provision cannot be understood without the help of English law, but not beyond. # Rewashankar Samji v.Vedji, AIR 1951 Kutch 56 # AIR 1915 All 94 # Mohd Isack v. . .