Legal Reference Library

The Delhi High Court through Justice Vibhu Bakhru struck down a ‘non compete‘ clause in M/s Stellar Information Technology Private Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Ors and decided in favour of the ex-employees who were restrained from carrying on their own business. The plaintiff is a private company engaged in the business of providing data recovery, data migration and data erasure solutions to its clients in India and abroad. They claimed that three of their former employees were stealing their confidential data, information, trade secrets and know how, and are now using the same for securing business from the plaintiff’s clients to run their own company called Techchef and contended that it was in breach of the “Confidentiality and Invention Assignment Agreement” and “Employee Confidentiality Agreement” entered into by the ex-employees with the plaintiff. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/guise-confidentiality-clause-employer-cant-restrain-trade-delhi-hc/

The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mata Sundri Educational Welfare Society vs. Union of India has held that complete restriction cannot be imposed in respect of admission to academic courses on the basis of domicile of the State. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain quashed a circular issued by Indian Nursing Council restricting admission to Auxiliary Nursing and Midwives (ANM) Course, only to the students domicile of the State of Punjab. The Circular was challenged by an Institute and a number of students contending that it is unconstitutional The Court referring to Apex Court decisions observed: “In Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case (supra), it has been held that “now it is clear on a reading of the Constitution that it recognises only one domicile, namely, domicile in India. Article 5 of the Constitution is clear and explicit on this point and it refers only to one domicile, namely, “domicile in the territory of India”. It is further observed that “it is dangerous to use a legal concept for conveying ...