| Case ID |
1f55abdc-d848-43c2-b726-423b57e750eb |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Suit No. 797 of 2008 |
| Decision Date |
Aug 19, 2008 |
| Hearing Date |
Jul 29, 2008 |
| Decision |
The court refused to grant the injunction sought by the plaintiff, EXIDE PAKISTAN LIMITED, against its former employee, Malik ABDUL WADOOD. The plaintiff claimed that a restrictive covenant preventing the defendant from working with competitors was valid; however, the court found the covenant to be too vague and generalized, failing to specify the confidential information that was allegedly protected. The defendant had worked for the plaintiff for over 36 years and had acquired knowledge during his employment, but the plaintiff could not substantiate claims of any trade secrets being disclosed. The court emphasized that for a restraint of trade clause to be enforceable, it must be reasonable and clearly defined, and in this case, the plaintiff did not meet that burden. Consequently, the application for injunction was dismissed, allowing the defendant to continue his employment with a competitor. |
| Summary |
In the case of EXIDE PAKISTAN LIMITED vs. Malik ABDUL WADOOD, the Sindh High Court addressed the enforceability of a restrictive covenant in an employment contract. The plaintiff, a leading manufacturer of batteries, sought to prevent its former employee from working with a direct competitor based on a clause in his employment agreement that prohibited such actions for two years after leaving the company. The court examined the reasonableness and clarity of the restrictive covenant, ultimately determining that it was too vague to be enforceable. The ruling underscored the importance of specificity in such agreements and highlighted the need for employers to clearly define what constitutes confidential information. The case illustrates the legal principles surrounding employment contracts, restraint of trade, and the balance between protecting business interests and allowing employees to pursue their careers. The court's decision serves as a significant reference for similar cases involving restrictive covenants in employment contracts, emphasizing the necessity for clarity and reasonableness in such clauses. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
EXIDE PAKISTAN LIMITED,
Pakistan Accumulators (Pvt.) Ltd.
|
| Judges |
KHALID ALI Z. QAZI
|
| Lawyers |
Ms. Sana Minhas,
Abdul Qayyum Abbasi
|
| Petitioners |
EXIDE PAKISTAN LIMITED through Finance Director and Company Secretary
|
| Respondents |
Malik ABDUL WADOOD
|
| Citations |
2008 SLD 2743,
2008 PLD 583
|
| Other Citations |
BNS Air Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Anwar Ali and others 1987 MLD 3009,
Al-Abid Silk Mills Ltd. v. Syed Muhammad Mudassar Rizvi 2003 MLD 1947,
Zafar Iqbal Papu v. District Magistrate Karachi East PLD 1988 Kar. 275,
Syed Shabih Haider Zaidi v. Shaikh Muhammad Zahoor Uddin 2001 CLC 69,
Government of Pakistan v. M.I. Cheema Dy. Registrar, Federal Shariat Court 1992 SCMR 1852,
Shahab Din v. The State 2004 MLD 1411,
Al-Jamiaul Arabia Ahasanul Uloom and Jamia Masjid v. Syed Sibte Hasan 1999 YLR 1634
|
| Laws Involved |
Contract Act (IX of 1872),
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877),
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
27,
54,
57,
O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2
|