CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >   An agreement in restraint of trade has been ... Start Learning for Free
An agreement in restraint of trade has been defined as “one in which a party agrees with any other party to restrict his liberty in the future to carry on trade with other persons who are not parties to the contract in such a manner as he chooses”.
Restrictive covenants are those which restrain one of the parties from doing an otherwise lawful activity, say a job, business and are therefore in restraint of trade. Such covenants are incorporated in situations when the employer desires to place certain restrictions on his employees. These are generally known as Negative Covenants and can be of two types one which operate during the subsistence of contract and even after its cessation, on the basis of their operation.
As an exception to this general rule, agreements under which one party sells his goodwill to another, while agreeing not to carry on a similar business within specified local limits, are valid, provided such an agreement appears to be reasonable to the Court. Article 19 (g) of the Constitution of India clearly provides every citizen the right to practice any profession, trade or business. This is not an absolute right, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on this right in the interest of the public. The courts have always been weary of upholding such restrictions and have kept the interpretation of this provision flexible to ensure that the principles of justice, morality and fairness are aptly applied, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
Employers often tend to incorporate restrictive covenants in the agreement to protect their confidential information and trade secrets as well as their growing businesses as well.
Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 makes every agreement by which anyone is restrained from carrying on a lawful avocation, trade or business of any kind, to that extent void.
As far as negative covenants which operate during the course of employment or during the subsistence of a contract are concerned, they are generally not regarded as in restraint of trade as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Shanker Golikari v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co.Ltd. However, the position in respect of negative covenants which operate even after the cessation of contract of employment are illegal and void as per section 27 of the Contract Act.
Q. What is the rationale for employers placing restrictive covenants in agreements with employees?
  • a)
    To attract them to their employment.
  • b)
    To ensure confidential information and trade secrets are not leaked.
  • c)
    To ensure employees do not leave their organization.
  • d)
    So that they do not become a threat to the company.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Most Upvoted Answer
An agreement in restraint of trade has been defined as “one in which ...
Employers often tend to incorporate restrictive covenants in the agreement to protect their confidential information and trade secrets as well as their growing businesses as well.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

An agreement in restraint of trade has been defined as “one in which a party agrees with any other party to restrict his liberty in the future to carry on trade with other persons who are not parties to the contract in such a manner as he chooses”.Restrictive covenants are those which restrain one of the parties from doing an otherwise lawful activity, say a job, business and are therefore in restraint of trade. Such covenants are incorporated in situations when the employer desires to place certain restrictions on his employees. These are generally known as Negative Covenants and can be of two types one which operate during the subsistence of contract and even after its cessation, on the basis of their operation.As an exception to this general rule, agreements under which one party sells his goodwill to another, while agreeing not to carry on a similar business within specified local limits, are valid, provided such an agreement appears to be reasonable to the Court. Article 19 (g) of the Constitution of India clearly provides every citizen the right to practice any profession, trade or business. This is not an absolute right, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on this right in the interest of the public. The courts have always been weary of upholding such restrictions and have kept the interpretation of this provision flexible to ensure that the principles of justice, morality and fairness are aptly applied, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.Employers often tend to incorporate restrictive covenants in the agreement to protect their confidential information and trade secrets as well as their growing businesses as well.Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 makes every agreement by which anyone is restrained from carrying on a lawful avocation, trade or business of any kind, to that extent void.As far as negative covenants which operate during the course of employment or during the subsistence of a contract are concerned, they are generally not regarded as in restraint of trade as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Shanker Golikari v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co.Ltd. However, the position in respect of negative covenants which operate even after the cessation of contract of employment are illegal and void as per section 27 of the Contract Act.Q. Which of the following is/are outcomes based on the case of Niranjan Shanker Golikari v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co.Ltd?

An agreement in restraint of trade has been defined as “one in which a party agrees with any other party to restrict his liberty in the future to carry on trade with other persons who are not parties to the contract in such a manner as he chooses”.Restrictive covenants are those which restrain one of the parties from doing an otherwise lawful activity, say a job, business and are therefore in restraint of trade. Such covenants are incorporated in situations when the employer desires to place certain restrictions on his employees. These are generally known as Negative Covenants and can be of two types one which operate during the subsistence of contract and even after its cessation, on the basis of their operation.As an exception to this general rule, agreements under which one party sells his goodwill to another, while agreeing not to carry on a similar business within specified local limits, are valid, provided such an agreement appears to be reasonable to the Court. Article 19 (g) of the Constitution of India clearly provides every citizen the right to practice any profession, trade or business. This is not an absolute right, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on this right in the interest of the public. The courts have always been weary of upholding such restrictions and have kept the interpretation of this provision flexible to ensure that the principles of justice, morality and fairness are aptly applied, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.Employers often tend to incorporate restrictive covenants in the agreement to protect their confidential information and trade secrets as well as their growing businesses as well.Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 makes every agreement by which anyone is restrained from carrying on a lawful avocation, trade or business of any kind, to that extent void.As far as negative covenants which operate during the course of employment or during the subsistence of a contract are concerned, they are generally not regarded as in restraint of trade as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Shanker Golikari v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co.Ltd. However, the position in respect of negative covenants which operate even after the cessation of contract of employment are illegal and void as per section 27 of the Contract Act.Q. What kind of agreements are violative of Section 27 of the Indian Contract?

An agreement in restraint of trade has been defined as “one in which a party agrees with any other party to restrict his liberty in the future to carry on trade with other persons who are not parties to the contract in such a manner as he chooses”.Restrictive covenants are those which restrain one of the parties from doing an otherwise lawful activity, say a job, business and are therefore in restraint of trade. Such covenants are incorporated in situations when the employer desires to place certain restrictions on his employees. These are generally known as Negative Covenants and can be of two types one which operate during the subsistence of contract and even after its cessation, on the basis of their operation.As an exception to this general rule, agreements under which one party sells his goodwill to another, while agreeing not to carry on a similar business within specified local limits, are valid, provided such an agreement appears to be reasonable to the Court. Article 19 (g) of the Constitution of India clearly provides every citizen the right to practice any profession, trade or business. This is not an absolute right, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on this right in the interest of the public. The courts have always been weary of upholding such restrictions and have kept the interpretation of this provision flexible to ensure that the principles of justice, morality and fairness are aptly applied, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.Employers often tend to incorporate restrictive covenants in the agreement to protect their confidential information and trade secrets as well as their growing businesses as well.Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 makes every agreement by which anyone is restrained from carrying on a lawful avocation, trade or business of any kind, to that extent void.As far as negative covenants which operate during the course of employment or during the subsistence of a contract are concerned, they are generally not regarded as in restraint of trade as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Shanker Golikari v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co.Ltd. However, the position in respect of negative covenants which operate even after the cessation of contract of employment are illegal and void as per section 27 of the Contract Act.Q. Mohan passed his MBBS examination and wanted to open his clinic in Jangaon. Doctor Veera was the only doctor in Jangaon who had a flourishing practice. When Dr. Veera came to know about Mohan’s plan, he offered to pay him Rs. 5 lakhs if he set up his clinic in some other town. Mohan accepted Veera’s offer and the payment. After three months, he opened his clinic in Jangaon itself. Can Veera take Mohan to court for breach of contract?

The application and implementation of the Article 19 (All citizens shall have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India subject to reasonable conditions) on the people of India can be seen from two angles. In Ebrahim Vazir Mavat vs. State of Bombay, the judgment under the Influx from Pakistan (Control) Act, 1949 showed that the Supreme Court would not be convinced regarding the existence of ""emergent circumstances"" to justify the denial of the right upon the subjective satisfaction of the government or any of its officers.On the other side, however, was the dissenting note on the same issue by the legendary chief justice, Sudhi Ranjan Das, who had this to say: ""Suppose an Indian citizen, no matter whether a Hindu or a Muslim, had entered India from Pakistan without a permit and suppose he was... engaged in espionage in the interest of Pakistan; would it have been safe enough... to have only prosecuted him under section 5 and inflicted on him a fine of rupees one thousand or a term of imprisonment not exceeding a year and then to have left him free after the term of imprisonment was over, to surreptitiously carry on his nefarious activities of espionage and sabotage against our State while embarking upon a protracted judicial inquiry to ascertain the truth or otherwise of his claim to Indian citizenship?"" The dissenting voice is fair and objective too. ""In the interests of general public"" free movement of citizens could be curbed. Is this the case today?We may again see the types of citizens whose right to free movement have been curbed in the past. Thus restrictions to protect the interests of scheduled tribes have been stipulated for the aboriginal tribes with their distinct culture, language and customs. Unrestricted entry of 'outsiders' in areas inhabited by the tribal folks might jeopardize their very existence and interests, as is shown by the supreme court.Restrictions on the free movement imposed on prostitutes to carry on their trade within a specified area and to reside in or move from particular areas have been held to be valid. Restrictions on residence imposed on habitual offenders have been upheld by the courts as being reasonable. Again ""restrictions on the movements of persons afflicted with AIDS have been held by Bombay High Court to be valid”.The four-day ban on free movement of citizens of India on a Calcutta road once again brings to light the problems of fundamental rights, which more often than not have been flouted, arbitrarily, for enforcement of political strength. But West Bengal is not the only state to do what it has done regarding the Constitution. There are others too. And there is competition, as the show goes on.When a citizen tested positive for disease that rapidly-spreads when he comes in contact, even remote, with other humans and animals, the government imposed restriction on his movement and forced him to quarantine for three weeks. After the quarantine, he moved to the court challenging the imposition of restriction. What would likely be the outcome of the case?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens certain fundamental freedoms, which are recognized as their fundamental rights. However, these fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of India are not absolute as no right can be. Each of these fundamental rights is liable to be controlled, curtailed and regulated to some extent by laws made by the Parliament or the State Legislatures. Accordingly, the Constitution of India lays down the grounds and the purposes for which a legislature can impose reasonable restrictions on the rights guaranteed to citizens. The State cannot travel beyond the contours of these reasonable restrictions in curbing the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens. While determining the constitutional validity of a restriction imposed on a fundamental right by a legislation, the Court is not concerned with the necessity of the restriction or the wisdom of the policy underlying it, but only whether the restriction is in excess of the requirement, and whether the legislature has overstepped the Constitutional limitations. Two of the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen of India are- the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and the right to reside and settle in any part of India. However, the State may impose reasonable restrictions on these rights by law, in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled tribes.Q.A group of Indian students of XYZ University located in New Delhi, India posted on social networking sites that they would hold a demonstration outside the university campus, protesting against a recently passed law which made it compulsory for university students to wear uniforms while attending classes. The students further threatened to use whatever means necessary to stop the oppression of students. Therefore, the State Authorities placed barricades around the university campus in order to restrict movement of the students carrying out the demonstration and ensuring that the demonstration does not turn violent. In the given situation, which of the following statements is correct regarding the act of placing of barricades by State Authorities?

Top Courses for CLAT

An agreement in restraint of trade has been defined as “one in which a party agrees with any other party to restrict his liberty in the future to carry on trade with other persons who are not parties to the contract in such a manner as he chooses”.Restrictive covenants are those which restrain one of the parties from doing an otherwise lawful activity, say a job, business and are therefore in restraint of trade. Such covenants are incorporated in situations when the employer desires to place certain restrictions on his employees. These are generally known as Negative Covenants and can be of two types one which operate during the subsistence of contract and even after its cessation, on the basis of their operation.As an exception to this general rule, agreements under which one party sells his goodwill to another, while agreeing not to carry on a similar business within specified local limits, are valid, provided such an agreement appears to be reasonable to the Court. Article 19 (g) of the Constitution of India clearly provides every citizen the right to practice any profession, trade or business. This is not an absolute right, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on this right in the interest of the public. The courts have always been weary of upholding such restrictions and have kept the interpretation of this provision flexible to ensure that the principles of justice, morality and fairness are aptly applied, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.Employers often tend to incorporate restrictive covenants in the agreement to protect their confidential information and trade secrets as well as their growing businesses as well.Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 makes every agreement by which anyone is restrained from carrying on a lawful avocation, trade or business of any kind, to that extent void.As far as negative covenants which operate during the course of employment or during the subsistence of a contract are concerned, they are generally not regarded as in restraint of trade as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Shanker Golikari v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co.Ltd. However, the position in respect of negative covenants which operate even after the cessation of contract of employment are illegal and void as per section 27 of the Contract Act.Q. What is the rationale for employers placing restrictive covenants in agreements with employees?a)To attract them to their employment.b)To ensure confidential information and trade secrets are not leaked.c)To ensure employees do not leave their organization.d)So that they do not become a threat to the company.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
An agreement in restraint of trade has been defined as “one in which a party agrees with any other party to restrict his liberty in the future to carry on trade with other persons who are not parties to the contract in such a manner as he chooses”.Restrictive covenants are those which restrain one of the parties from doing an otherwise lawful activity, say a job, business and are therefore in restraint of trade. Such covenants are incorporated in situations when the employer desires to place certain restrictions on his employees. These are generally known as Negative Covenants and can be of two types one which operate during the subsistence of contract and even after its cessation, on the basis of their operation.As an exception to this general rule, agreements under which one party sells his goodwill to another, while agreeing not to carry on a similar business within specified local limits, are valid, provided such an agreement appears to be reasonable to the Court. Article 19 (g) of the Constitution of India clearly provides every citizen the right to practice any profession, trade or business. This is not an absolute right, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on this right in the interest of the public. The courts have always been weary of upholding such restrictions and have kept the interpretation of this provision flexible to ensure that the principles of justice, morality and fairness are aptly applied, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.Employers often tend to incorporate restrictive covenants in the agreement to protect their confidential information and trade secrets as well as their growing businesses as well.Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 makes every agreement by which anyone is restrained from carrying on a lawful avocation, trade or business of any kind, to that extent void.As far as negative covenants which operate during the course of employment or during the subsistence of a contract are concerned, they are generally not regarded as in restraint of trade as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Shanker Golikari v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co.Ltd. However, the position in respect of negative covenants which operate even after the cessation of contract of employment are illegal and void as per section 27 of the Contract Act.Q. What is the rationale for employers placing restrictive covenants in agreements with employees?a)To attract them to their employment.b)To ensure confidential information and trade secrets are not leaked.c)To ensure employees do not leave their organization.d)So that they do not become a threat to the company.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about An agreement in restraint of trade has been defined as “one in which a party agrees with any other party to restrict his liberty in the future to carry on trade with other persons who are not parties to the contract in such a manner as he chooses”.Restrictive covenants are those which restrain one of the parties from doing an otherwise lawful activity, say a job, business and are therefore in restraint of trade. Such covenants are incorporated in situations when the employer desires to place certain restrictions on his employees. These are generally known as Negative Covenants and can be of two types one which operate during the subsistence of contract and even after its cessation, on the basis of their operation.As an exception to this general rule, agreements under which one party sells his goodwill to another, while agreeing not to carry on a similar business within specified local limits, are valid, provided such an agreement appears to be reasonable to the Court. Article 19 (g) of the Constitution of India clearly provides every citizen the right to practice any profession, trade or business. This is not an absolute right, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on this right in the interest of the public. The courts have always been weary of upholding such restrictions and have kept the interpretation of this provision flexible to ensure that the principles of justice, morality and fairness are aptly applied, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.Employers often tend to incorporate restrictive covenants in the agreement to protect their confidential information and trade secrets as well as their growing businesses as well.Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 makes every agreement by which anyone is restrained from carrying on a lawful avocation, trade or business of any kind, to that extent void.As far as negative covenants which operate during the course of employment or during the subsistence of a contract are concerned, they are generally not regarded as in restraint of trade as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Shanker Golikari v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co.Ltd. However, the position in respect of negative covenants which operate even after the cessation of contract of employment are illegal and void as per section 27 of the Contract Act.Q. What is the rationale for employers placing restrictive covenants in agreements with employees?a)To attract them to their employment.b)To ensure confidential information and trade secrets are not leaked.c)To ensure employees do not leave their organization.d)So that they do not become a threat to the company.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for An agreement in restraint of trade has been defined as “one in which a party agrees with any other party to restrict his liberty in the future to carry on trade with other persons who are not parties to the contract in such a manner as he chooses”.Restrictive covenants are those which restrain one of the parties from doing an otherwise lawful activity, say a job, business and are therefore in restraint of trade. Such covenants are incorporated in situations when the employer desires to place certain restrictions on his employees. These are generally known as Negative Covenants and can be of two types one which operate during the subsistence of contract and even after its cessation, on the basis of their operation.As an exception to this general rule, agreements under which one party sells his goodwill to another, while agreeing not to carry on a similar business within specified local limits, are valid, provided such an agreement appears to be reasonable to the Court. Article 19 (g) of the Constitution of India clearly provides every citizen the right to practice any profession, trade or business. This is not an absolute right, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on this right in the interest of the public. The courts have always been weary of upholding such restrictions and have kept the interpretation of this provision flexible to ensure that the principles of justice, morality and fairness are aptly applied, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.Employers often tend to incorporate restrictive covenants in the agreement to protect their confidential information and trade secrets as well as their growing businesses as well.Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 makes every agreement by which anyone is restrained from carrying on a lawful avocation, trade or business of any kind, to that extent void.As far as negative covenants which operate during the course of employment or during the subsistence of a contract are concerned, they are generally not regarded as in restraint of trade as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Shanker Golikari v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co.Ltd. However, the position in respect of negative covenants which operate even after the cessation of contract of employment are illegal and void as per section 27 of the Contract Act.Q. What is the rationale for employers placing restrictive covenants in agreements with employees?a)To attract them to their employment.b)To ensure confidential information and trade secrets are not leaked.c)To ensure employees do not leave their organization.d)So that they do not become a threat to the company.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for An agreement in restraint of trade has been defined as “one in which a party agrees with any other party to restrict his liberty in the future to carry on trade with other persons who are not parties to the contract in such a manner as he chooses”.Restrictive covenants are those which restrain one of the parties from doing an otherwise lawful activity, say a job, business and are therefore in restraint of trade. Such covenants are incorporated in situations when the employer desires to place certain restrictions on his employees. These are generally known as Negative Covenants and can be of two types one which operate during the subsistence of contract and even after its cessation, on the basis of their operation.As an exception to this general rule, agreements under which one party sells his goodwill to another, while agreeing not to carry on a similar business within specified local limits, are valid, provided such an agreement appears to be reasonable to the Court. Article 19 (g) of the Constitution of India clearly provides every citizen the right to practice any profession, trade or business. This is not an absolute right, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on this right in the interest of the public. The courts have always been weary of upholding such restrictions and have kept the interpretation of this provision flexible to ensure that the principles of justice, morality and fairness are aptly applied, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.Employers often tend to incorporate restrictive covenants in the agreement to protect their confidential information and trade secrets as well as their growing businesses as well.Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 makes every agreement by which anyone is restrained from carrying on a lawful avocation, trade or business of any kind, to that extent void.As far as negative covenants which operate during the course of employment or during the subsistence of a contract are concerned, they are generally not regarded as in restraint of trade as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Shanker Golikari v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co.Ltd. However, the position in respect of negative covenants which operate even after the cessation of contract of employment are illegal and void as per section 27 of the Contract Act.Q. What is the rationale for employers placing restrictive covenants in agreements with employees?a)To attract them to their employment.b)To ensure confidential information and trade secrets are not leaked.c)To ensure employees do not leave their organization.d)So that they do not become a threat to the company.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of An agreement in restraint of trade has been defined as “one in which a party agrees with any other party to restrict his liberty in the future to carry on trade with other persons who are not parties to the contract in such a manner as he chooses”.Restrictive covenants are those which restrain one of the parties from doing an otherwise lawful activity, say a job, business and are therefore in restraint of trade. Such covenants are incorporated in situations when the employer desires to place certain restrictions on his employees. These are generally known as Negative Covenants and can be of two types one which operate during the subsistence of contract and even after its cessation, on the basis of their operation.As an exception to this general rule, agreements under which one party sells his goodwill to another, while agreeing not to carry on a similar business within specified local limits, are valid, provided such an agreement appears to be reasonable to the Court. Article 19 (g) of the Constitution of India clearly provides every citizen the right to practice any profession, trade or business. This is not an absolute right, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on this right in the interest of the public. The courts have always been weary of upholding such restrictions and have kept the interpretation of this provision flexible to ensure that the principles of justice, morality and fairness are aptly applied, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.Employers often tend to incorporate restrictive covenants in the agreement to protect their confidential information and trade secrets as well as their growing businesses as well.Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 makes every agreement by which anyone is restrained from carrying on a lawful avocation, trade or business of any kind, to that extent void.As far as negative covenants which operate during the course of employment or during the subsistence of a contract are concerned, they are generally not regarded as in restraint of trade as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Shanker Golikari v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co.Ltd. However, the position in respect of negative covenants which operate even after the cessation of contract of employment are illegal and void as per section 27 of the Contract Act.Q. What is the rationale for employers placing restrictive covenants in agreements with employees?a)To attract them to their employment.b)To ensure confidential information and trade secrets are not leaked.c)To ensure employees do not leave their organization.d)So that they do not become a threat to the company.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of An agreement in restraint of trade has been defined as “one in which a party agrees with any other party to restrict his liberty in the future to carry on trade with other persons who are not parties to the contract in such a manner as he chooses”.Restrictive covenants are those which restrain one of the parties from doing an otherwise lawful activity, say a job, business and are therefore in restraint of trade. Such covenants are incorporated in situations when the employer desires to place certain restrictions on his employees. These are generally known as Negative Covenants and can be of two types one which operate during the subsistence of contract and even after its cessation, on the basis of their operation.As an exception to this general rule, agreements under which one party sells his goodwill to another, while agreeing not to carry on a similar business within specified local limits, are valid, provided such an agreement appears to be reasonable to the Court. Article 19 (g) of the Constitution of India clearly provides every citizen the right to practice any profession, trade or business. This is not an absolute right, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on this right in the interest of the public. The courts have always been weary of upholding such restrictions and have kept the interpretation of this provision flexible to ensure that the principles of justice, morality and fairness are aptly applied, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.Employers often tend to incorporate restrictive covenants in the agreement to protect their confidential information and trade secrets as well as their growing businesses as well.Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 makes every agreement by which anyone is restrained from carrying on a lawful avocation, trade or business of any kind, to that extent void.As far as negative covenants which operate during the course of employment or during the subsistence of a contract are concerned, they are generally not regarded as in restraint of trade as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Shanker Golikari v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co.Ltd. However, the position in respect of negative covenants which operate even after the cessation of contract of employment are illegal and void as per section 27 of the Contract Act.Q. What is the rationale for employers placing restrictive covenants in agreements with employees?a)To attract them to their employment.b)To ensure confidential information and trade secrets are not leaked.c)To ensure employees do not leave their organization.d)So that they do not become a threat to the company.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for An agreement in restraint of trade has been defined as “one in which a party agrees with any other party to restrict his liberty in the future to carry on trade with other persons who are not parties to the contract in such a manner as he chooses”.Restrictive covenants are those which restrain one of the parties from doing an otherwise lawful activity, say a job, business and are therefore in restraint of trade. Such covenants are incorporated in situations when the employer desires to place certain restrictions on his employees. These are generally known as Negative Covenants and can be of two types one which operate during the subsistence of contract and even after its cessation, on the basis of their operation.As an exception to this general rule, agreements under which one party sells his goodwill to another, while agreeing not to carry on a similar business within specified local limits, are valid, provided such an agreement appears to be reasonable to the Court. Article 19 (g) of the Constitution of India clearly provides every citizen the right to practice any profession, trade or business. This is not an absolute right, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on this right in the interest of the public. The courts have always been weary of upholding such restrictions and have kept the interpretation of this provision flexible to ensure that the principles of justice, morality and fairness are aptly applied, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.Employers often tend to incorporate restrictive covenants in the agreement to protect their confidential information and trade secrets as well as their growing businesses as well.Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 makes every agreement by which anyone is restrained from carrying on a lawful avocation, trade or business of any kind, to that extent void.As far as negative covenants which operate during the course of employment or during the subsistence of a contract are concerned, they are generally not regarded as in restraint of trade as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Shanker Golikari v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co.Ltd. However, the position in respect of negative covenants which operate even after the cessation of contract of employment are illegal and void as per section 27 of the Contract Act.Q. What is the rationale for employers placing restrictive covenants in agreements with employees?a)To attract them to their employment.b)To ensure confidential information and trade secrets are not leaked.c)To ensure employees do not leave their organization.d)So that they do not become a threat to the company.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of An agreement in restraint of trade has been defined as “one in which a party agrees with any other party to restrict his liberty in the future to carry on trade with other persons who are not parties to the contract in such a manner as he chooses”.Restrictive covenants are those which restrain one of the parties from doing an otherwise lawful activity, say a job, business and are therefore in restraint of trade. Such covenants are incorporated in situations when the employer desires to place certain restrictions on his employees. These are generally known as Negative Covenants and can be of two types one which operate during the subsistence of contract and even after its cessation, on the basis of their operation.As an exception to this general rule, agreements under which one party sells his goodwill to another, while agreeing not to carry on a similar business within specified local limits, are valid, provided such an agreement appears to be reasonable to the Court. Article 19 (g) of the Constitution of India clearly provides every citizen the right to practice any profession, trade or business. This is not an absolute right, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on this right in the interest of the public. The courts have always been weary of upholding such restrictions and have kept the interpretation of this provision flexible to ensure that the principles of justice, morality and fairness are aptly applied, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.Employers often tend to incorporate restrictive covenants in the agreement to protect their confidential information and trade secrets as well as their growing businesses as well.Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 makes every agreement by which anyone is restrained from carrying on a lawful avocation, trade or business of any kind, to that extent void.As far as negative covenants which operate during the course of employment or during the subsistence of a contract are concerned, they are generally not regarded as in restraint of trade as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Shanker Golikari v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co.Ltd. However, the position in respect of negative covenants which operate even after the cessation of contract of employment are illegal and void as per section 27 of the Contract Act.Q. What is the rationale for employers placing restrictive covenants in agreements with employees?a)To attract them to their employment.b)To ensure confidential information and trade secrets are not leaked.c)To ensure employees do not leave their organization.d)So that they do not become a threat to the company.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice An agreement in restraint of trade has been defined as “one in which a party agrees with any other party to restrict his liberty in the future to carry on trade with other persons who are not parties to the contract in such a manner as he chooses”.Restrictive covenants are those which restrain one of the parties from doing an otherwise lawful activity, say a job, business and are therefore in restraint of trade. Such covenants are incorporated in situations when the employer desires to place certain restrictions on his employees. These are generally known as Negative Covenants and can be of two types one which operate during the subsistence of contract and even after its cessation, on the basis of their operation.As an exception to this general rule, agreements under which one party sells his goodwill to another, while agreeing not to carry on a similar business within specified local limits, are valid, provided such an agreement appears to be reasonable to the Court. Article 19 (g) of the Constitution of India clearly provides every citizen the right to practice any profession, trade or business. This is not an absolute right, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on this right in the interest of the public. The courts have always been weary of upholding such restrictions and have kept the interpretation of this provision flexible to ensure that the principles of justice, morality and fairness are aptly applied, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.Employers often tend to incorporate restrictive covenants in the agreement to protect their confidential information and trade secrets as well as their growing businesses as well.Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 makes every agreement by which anyone is restrained from carrying on a lawful avocation, trade or business of any kind, to that extent void.As far as negative covenants which operate during the course of employment or during the subsistence of a contract are concerned, they are generally not regarded as in restraint of trade as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Shanker Golikari v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co.Ltd. However, the position in respect of negative covenants which operate even after the cessation of contract of employment are illegal and void as per section 27 of the Contract Act.Q. What is the rationale for employers placing restrictive covenants in agreements with employees?a)To attract them to their employment.b)To ensure confidential information and trade secrets are not leaked.c)To ensure employees do not leave their organization.d)So that they do not become a threat to the company.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev