In legal studies, the principle related to agreements restraining lawful professions, trades, or businesses is governed by the concept of restraint of trade. According to contract law, any agreement that imposes undue or unreasonable restraints on an individual’s ability to engage in a lawful profession, trade, or business is generally considered unenforceable and, therefore, void.
This is based on public policy considerations, where the law seeks to promote free trade and protect individual rights to earn a livelihood without unfair restrictions. Specific exceptions may apply to this general rule, such as reasonable non-compete agreements that protect legitimate business interests, but these must not exceed what is necessary to protect those interests and must be reasonable in scope.
Given this principle, the correct answer to the provided question is: Void.
Offenses | Sections |
(A) Voyeurism | (1) Section 77 |
(B) Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman | (2) Section 79 |
(C) Stalking | (3) Section 75 |
(D) Sexual Harassment | (4) Section 78 |
(A) Conditions for a Hindu Marriage | (i) Section 13 |
(B) Registration of Hindu Marriage | (ii) Section 10 |
(C) Judicial Separation | (iii) Section 5 |
(D) Divorce | (iv) Section 8 |
I. Arbitration of excepted matters | 1. A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam, (2016) 10 SCC 386 |
II. Conditional Arbitration Clauses | 2. In re - Interplay between Arb Agreements and Stamp Act 2023 INSC 1066 |
III. Separability of Arbitration Agreement - Kompetenz Kompetenz | 3. Vulcan Insurance Co Ltd v. Maharaj Singh and Anr (1976) 1 SCC 943 |
IV. Arbitrability of fraud | 4. Mitra Guha Builders (India) Co v. ONGC (2020) 3 SCC 222 |