1990 (9) TMI 368 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

(1) Whether the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is maintainable given the arbitration agreement between the parties and its potential classification as a foreign award under the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961.

(2) Whether the restraint clause (Clause 27) in the agreement, which prevents the respondent from using PVP-I in its preparations during and after the termination of the agreement, is enforceable under Indian law, specifically in light of Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

(3) Whether the respondent's actions in preparing and intending to sell a product containing PVP-I under the trade name 'WOKADINE' during the subsistence of the license agreement and within three years post-termination violate the agreement.

(4) Whether the respondent's procurement of PVP-I from a third party constitutes a breach of the agreement.

(5) Whether the petitioner is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the respondent from dealing with preparations containing PVP-I post-termination of the agreement.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Maintainability of the Petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940

The Court considered whether the petition was maintainable under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The arbitration agreement stipulated that disputes would be settled under the Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, with the arbitration held in Zurich, Switzerland. The Court noted that this could classify the award as a foreign award under the Foreign Awards Act, 1961. However, the respondent conceded the maintainability of the petition for the purpose of deciding the interim application, leaving the substantive question open for future determination.

Issue 2: Enforceability of Restraint Clause under Indian Law

The Court analyzed Clause 27 of the agreement, which imposed a restraint on the respondent from using PVP-I during and after the agreement's termination. The Court referred to Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which voids agreements that restrain trade. The Court emphasized that the restraint must be reasonable and necessary to protect the interests of the party enforcing it. The Court found that the restraint was unreasonable post-termination, especially since the petitioner did not manufacture PVP-I and the formulations were publicly known. The Court also noted that the restraint applied only to the "Mundidone" brand of PVP-I, not PVP-I generally.

Issue 3: Breach of Agreement by Respondent

The petitioner alleged that the respondent breached the agreement by preparing and intending to sell products containing PVP-I under the trade name 'WOKADINE'. The Court noted that the respondent had pledged not to use the petitioner's formulations and found no evidence of breach before the agreement's expiry. The Court found the restraint on using PVP-I unreasonable after the agreement's termination.

Issue 4: Procurement of PVP-I by Respondent

The petitioner argued that the respondent's procurement of PVP-I from a third party constituted a breach. The Court found that the respondent's actions did not breach the agreement, as the order for PVP-I was placed before the termination notice, and the shipment was delayed due to the petitioner's actions.

Issue 5: Entitlement to Interim Injunction

The petitioner sought an interim injunction to prevent the respondent from dealing with PVP-I preparations post-termination. The Court found no merit in this application, emphasizing that PVP-I is widely available and formulations are public knowledge. The Court dismissed the application and vacated the interim order.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held that:

"Clause 27 is in restraint of trade inasmuch as it itself submitted that this clause was nevertheless valid according to Swiss laws... It is certainly hit by Section 27 of the Contract Act."

The Court established that agreements restraining trade must be reasonable and necessary to protect the enforcing party's interests. The restraint on the respondent was found unreasonable post-termination, particularly as the petitioner did not manufacture PVP-I and formulations were publicly known.

The Court concluded that the restraint applied only to the "Mundidone" brand of PVP-I, not PVP-I in general, and found no evidence of breach by the respondent before the agreement's expiry.

The Court dismissed the petitioner's application for an interim injunction, emphasizing that the restraint was unreasonable and unenforceable under Indian law.