The Tribunal stated in Reddy/Siemens  SCA 164 that “the material right, as provided in Magna Alloys, is that a restriction is enforceable, unless it proves inappropriate, which necessarily places a constraint on the person attempting to escape it.” In noting the adequacy, the Tribunal considers the public interest that requires the parties to respect their contractual obligations, contrary to the interests of society, which allows individuals to act freely and to be employed in the profession of their choice. Under Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act, all agreements restricting marriage, with the exception of a minor, are unhinged. The Romans were the first to delegitimize agreements that respected marriage. The basis of the marriage limitation agreements, which are null and void, is that marriage is a sacrament and that nothing should encroach on the institution of marriage, not even treaties. The idea behind this provision is not to deprive everyone of the personal right to marry someone of their choice. It is important to note here that, according to the section, agreements limiting the marriage of a minor are not invalid. Under Indian law, any agreement related to the limitation of trade and the profession is not binding on the parties and does not bind them. Using the concept of void ab initio, it demonstrated, in the context of such agreements, that it had not taken this non-competition clause into account in the agreements. Indian courts have also consistently refused to impose non-competition prohibitions after the termination of employment contracts, because of the inadmissibility of “trade restrictions” under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act 1872, and have found them unhinged and contrary to public policy because they may deprive a person of his or her fundamental right to live. Similarly, workers should ensure that they understand the scope and content of the restriction of the trade agreement they enter into, as it is up to the worker to prove its unreasonableness and, therefore, its inoperable nature. But suppose Sally, the hairdresser, is employed by Harry`s Hairy Salon, with a three-month limit on the commercial clause for the geographic area of 5 km from the workplace.
This would most likely apply, as hairdressers usually have a relationship with people who go to them for their haircuts. If Sally moves into the living room, chances are the people she developed relationships with, while working at the Harry Hairy Salon, will follow Sally into the new living room. The three-month trade restriction would give Harry`s Hairy Salon the opportunity to forge new relationships with these people, with their other hairdressers. Therefore, restraint is a real protection for Harry`s hairy salon, unlike sally`s punishment. If Harry were smart, he`d also have a no-solicitation clause in Sally`s employment contract. Under Section 27 of the Act, a restriction on trade is non-ae. In other words, any agreement that prevents a person from founding or pursuing his profession or profession is, in exchange for some consideration, not a consideration. Therefore, any agreement that prevents a person from acting as he or she wishes is characterized as an agreement with another party in which the other party enjoys the end of its profession as an agreement limiting trade.