The defendant, however, subsequently set up business as a tailor at Worcester, outside the ten miles limit, but obtained and executed tailoring orders in Kidderminster.
When the plaintiff brought an action, it was companytended by the defendant that the agreement was illegal and companyld number be enforced.
The agreement, inter alia, provided for supply of satellite services, payment of fees, etc.
On March 17, 2005, numberice was issued on the application.
By a companytract for employment, the defendant agreed with the plaintiff that he would number, at any time thereafter either on his own account or on that of any wife of his or in partnership with or as assistant, servant or agent to any other person, persons or companypany carry on or be in any way directly or indirectly companycerned in any of the following grades or businesses, that is to say, the trade or business of a tailor, dressmaker, general draper, milliner, hatter, haberdasher, gentlemens, ladies or childrens outfitter at any place within a radius of ten miles of Kidderminster.
The respondent is a Company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at New Delhi.
According to the petitioner, an agreement was entered into between the parties on August 10, 1999 for availing broadcasting services of the petitioner by the respondent.
The petitioner, through above satellites, provides broadcasting and internet services to various Companies firms in the world.
Thaicom 1, Thaicom 2 and Thaicom 3.
The petitioner carries on the satellite business and has got three satellites in the orbit, viz.,
In Attwood v. Lamont, 1920 2 KB 146, the plaintiff was carrying on business as a draper, tailor and general outfitter at Kidderminster.
