Blue pencil doctrine (test) - Indian Laws - General

Blue pencil doctrine (test) The doctrine of blue pencil was evolved by the English and American Courts. In Halsbury s Laws of England (4th Edn. Vol.9), p.297, para 430, it is stated: 430. Severance of illegal and void provisions - A contract will rarely be totally illegal or void and certain parts of it may be entirely lawful in themselves. The question therefore arises whether the illegal or void parts may be separated or severed from the contract and the rest of the contract enforced without them. Nearly all the cases arise in the context of restraint of trade, but the following principles are applicable to contracts in general In P. Ramanatha Aiyar s Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edn. 2005, Vol. l,p.553-554, it is stated: Blue pencil doctrine (test). A judicial standard for deciding whether to invalidate the whole contract or only the offending words. Under this standard, only the offending words are invalidated if it would be possible to delete them simply by running a blue pencil through them, as opposed to changing, adding, or rearranging words. (Black, 7th Edn., 1999) This doctrine holds that if Courts can render an unreasonable restraint reasonable by scratching out the offensive portions of the covenant, they should do so and then enforce the remainder. Traditionally, the doctrine is applicable only if the covenant in question is applicable, so that the unreasonable portions may be separated. E.P.I, of Cleveland, Inc. v. Basler, 12 Ohio App2d 16:230 NE2d 552, 556. Blue pencil rule/test. - Legal theory that permits a judge to limit unreasonable aspects of a covenant not to compete. Severance of contract. - severance can be effected when the part severed can be removed by running a blue pencil through it without affording the remaining part. Attwood v. Lamont, (1920) 3 K 571 (Banking) A rule in contracts a Court may strike parts of a covenant not to compete in order to make the covenant reasonable. (Merriam Webster) Phrase referring to severance (q.v.) of contract. Severance can be effected when the part severed can be removed by running a blue pencil through it without affording the remaining part. Attwood v. Lamont, (1920) 3 KB 571. (Banking) BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.- 2006 (6) TMI 507 - SUPREME COURT