Landmark Judgement Analysis with Recognized General Corporate Advisory Services

by Rishi Batta Law Firm

An agreement restraining a person from carrying on a lawful profession, trade or business is void to that extent. The objective of such a provision was to protect trade from restraints, at a time when trade was still advancing as ‘trade in India was in its infancy; and the legislature may have wished to make the smallest number of exceptions to the rule against contracts whereby trade may be restrained’[1]

However, with the passing of time, restrictions of trade which confine the operation of agreements also started evolving with the evolution of commerce and communication. The Allahabad High Court observed that ‘it is unfortunate that s.27…seriously trenches upon the liberty of the individual in contractual matters affecting trade’.[2] But now that trade in India has advanced to a large extent, there should be a more liberal attitude towards restraints, if they are reasonable between the parties and towards the general public.[3]

In this article, I delve into the landmark judgement “Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Company[4]”, in which the Supreme Court looks into the law relating to the validity of contracts / commercial agreements containing negative covenants.

Tatva Legal, Hyderabad has an experienced team of corporate lawyers who, amongst other services, advise on a wide range of issues in relation to general corporate advisory, contracts, and mergers & acquisitions, private equity and joint ventures[TL1] .


Gujarat Bottling Company Limited (“GBC”) and Coca Cola Company (“Coke”) entered into two agreements, in 1993 and 1994. The 1993 agreement was an agreement for grant of franchise by Coke to GBC to manufacture, bottle, sell and distribute beverages known and sold under the trademarks (these had been acquired by Coke) “Gold Spot”, “Thums up”, “Limca”, “Maaza” and “Rim Zim” (“1993 Agreement”).

Paragraph 14 of the 1993 Agreement is relevant and reads as: “As such the Bottler covenants that the Bottler will not manufacture, bottle, sell, deal or otherwise be concerned with the products, beverages of any other brands of trade marks/trade names during the subsistence of this Agreement including the period of one year’s notice as contemplated in paragraph 21.”

Paragraph 14 is a negative covenant as it restricts GBC from manufacturing, bottling, selling, dealing, or performing any activity in connection to the products not only during the term of the 1993 Agreement but also “including the period on one year’s notice…”. Paragraph 21 of the 1993 Agreement stipulated the termination without notice by either party, upon giving 1 year’s written notice.

Under the agreement signed between GBC and Coke in 1994, the period of termination was reduced to 90 days, there was no restrictive provision, and the 1993 Agreement was not expressly substituted (“1994 Agreement”).

In 1995, the shareholding of GBC was subsequently transferred to Pepsi. Then GBC served Coke with a 90-day termination notice, to terminate the 1993 Agreement. GBC contended that the 1993 Agreement was replaced by the 1994 Agreement and, therefore, the termination procedure under the 1994 Agreement was applicable. There was no communication between GBC and Coke whereby the termination notice period was reduced from 1 year to 90 days under the 1993 Agreement.

As such, the Supreme Court stated that “for the present, we will proceed on the basis that the 1993 Agreement subsists and it does not stand terminated on the expiry of 90 days from the date of notice dated January 25, 1995.”

Shortly after receiving the 90-day termination notice, Coke filed a suit in the Bombay High Court, seeking GBC to refrain from dealing with Pepsi for a period of 1 year of the termination notice, as per the 1993 Agreement.

The Bombay High Court issued an interim injunction restraining GBC from manufacturing, bottling, selling, or dealing of the products with anyone other than Coke. Thereafter, GBC filed an appeal, and the judgement was in favour of the injunction restraining GBC from concerning itself with the products/beverages of any brand other than Coke. Aggrieved, GBC filed an appeal in the Indian Supreme Court.

One of the issues considered by the Supreme Court in this case was whether paragraph 14 of the 1993 Agreement was in restraint of trade under section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“Act”), and therefore was it void?

The Supreme Court referred to multiple observations and stated that agreements such as franchise agreements often incorporate a condition that the franchisee shall not deal with competing goods. Such a condition restricting the right of a franchisee is for facilitating the distribution of goods of the franchiser and cannot be regarded as a restraint of trade.


Sponsor Ads

About Rishi Batta Innovator   Law Firm

12 connections, 1 recommendations, 55 honor points.
Joined APSense since, July 6th, 2021, From Hyderabad, India.

Created on Jul 7th 2021 12:51. Viewed 321 times.


No comment, be the first to comment.
Please sign in before you comment.