One of the essential conditions for the formation of the contract is that it cannot be declared invalid. Section 10 of the Indian Contracts Act states that “all contracts are contracts… which are not expressly cancelled. A contract can be cancelled for several reasons, for example. B for reasons: a non-competition clause is known under the laws of the treaty, since the clause is contained in an agreement between two parties, one being the employer and the other part of the workers. Under this non-competition clause obliges and gives the worker`s consent according to the employer`s condition not to be the employer`s competitor in the form and type of employment of the employer during the employment or after the employment. The non-competition clause finds its place in agreements and treaties around the world. In 1872, the non-competition clause was prohibited by the Indian Contracts Act. In the same case, Lord Denning M.R. has the right: “Every member of the Community has the right to carry out all the business or transactions he chooses and in a way that he deems desirable in his own interest, provided that he does nothing lawful: with the consequence that any contract which impairs the free exercise of his activity or his business by returning him to the work he can provide , or that the agreements it can enter into with others is a trade agreement. It is inoperative, unless it is reasonable between the parties and is not comfortable with public interests. Since the agreement to sell all products to a particular party, provided that the buyer is required to accept the full amount, was valid because it was intended to promote the transaction and did not retain it (Mackenzie vs. Striramiah). However, if, in a similar agreement, the purchaser was free to refuse the goods (i.e. he was not required to accept the full amount proposed), it was found that the agreement was non-stretchable because it was subject to trade restrictions (Sheikh Kalu vs.
Ram Saran). Company Daulat Ram vs. Firm Dharm Chand, AIR 1934 Lah 110, where two ice plant owners who formed a partnership, agreed that only one plant at a time would work and distribute their profits among themselves. The deference was found to be justified. One of the principles is that a gentleman does not have the right to prevent his prime contractor from participating in the competition after the termination of the employment relationship, but that he is entitled to adequate protection against the exploitation of trade secrets.