PERCEPT D'MARK (INDIA) PVT. LTD. versus ZAHEER KHAN

PERCEPT D'MARK (INDIA) PVT. LTD. versus ZAHEER KHAN

The contract concerned services of personal, confidential, and fiduciary nature, incapable of specific performance and enforcement by injunction. Clause 31(b) sought enforcement beyond contract term, constituting unlawful restraint under Section 27 of Indian Contract Act. Injunctive relief amounted to compelling specific performance barred by Section 14 of Specific Relief Act and the grant of interim injunction was impermissible.

Parties
Appellant: Percept D'Mark (India) Pvt. Ltd.; Respondent No.1: Zaheer Khan; Respondent No.2: Respondent No.2
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal Against Division Bench Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Restraint of Trade, Negative Covenants, Interim Injunction, Arbitration
Contract Law Sports Law Arbitration Specific Performance Restraint of Trade Negative Covenants Interim Injunction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Percept D'Mark (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Appellant

Zaheer Khan

Respondent No.1

Respondent No.2

Respondent No.2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal Against Division Bench Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Clause 31(b) of the promotion agreement constitutes restraint of trade and is void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
  2. 2 Whether the promotion agreement for services of a personal, confidential, and fiduciary nature is capable of specific performance under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
  3. 3 Whether an interim injunction can compel such contracts and restrict a sportsperson's liberty to choose his agent

Ratio Decidendi

The contract concerned services of personal, confidential, and fiduciary nature, incapable of specific performance and enforcement by injunction. Clause 31(b) sought enforcement beyond contract term, constituting unlawful restraint under Section 27 of Indian Contract Act. Injunctive relief amounted to compelling specific performance barred by Section 14 of Specific Relief Act and the grant of interim injunction was impermissible.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • All findings of the High Court are limited to interlocutory application and will not bind at trial.
  • All contentions of all parties expressly kept open.