In order to avoid competition, the applicant purchased the defendant`s business together with the goodwill and contractually committed it not to open a similar store in the region for 3 years. The accused did not do so and resumed his belongings. The Tribunal decided that the agreement was valid since it fell within the exception of S.27. Part XIII of the Constitution of India contains provisions relating to the freedom of trade, commerce and transport in the territory of India. The provisions are laid down in Articles 301 to 307. Just as the legislator cannot take away the freedom of individual trade, the individual cannot exchange it by agreement. « The principle of the law is as follows: public order requires that every human being has the freedom to work for himself and that he is not free to deprive himself of himself, his skills or talents through a contract that he flows. » The clear importance of section 27 is so clear that any agreement that prevents a person from carrying on any legal profession, activity or activity of any kind in that regard. Even if, for example, a restriction within the meaning of Mitchel and Addyston Pipe is necessary and complementary, it may constitute an inappropriate restriction on trade if their anti-competitive effects and the resulting harm to the public interest outweigh their advantages. Thus, in Polygram, Ginsburg J. stated that there were two exceptions to this provision, (i) provided for by law, and (ii) which arise from the judicial interpretation of section 27 of the Act.
After the sale of the good-business or goodwill, the seller always has the right to carry out a competing activity. . . .