Court case(1874) 14 Beng LR 76

The plaintiff and the defendant were rival braziers carrying on business in the same locality of Calcutta. To get rid of the competition the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff a sum of money if the plaintiff closed his shop in that locality. The plaintiff did so, but the defendant refused to pay, and the plaintiff sued on the agreement.

Couch CJ held the agreement void. Section 27 says that every agreement by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful trade "of any kind" is "to that extent" void. The words "to that extent" do not import the English distinction between general restraints (void) and partial restraints (valid if reasonable); they mean only that the rest of the agreement survives. The legislature had deliberately departed from English law, and an agreement restraining a man from trading even in one locality is within the section. The plaintiff could not recover the promised money.