Trends in Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Enforcement Litigation in India
Retaining talent and protecting sensitive proprietary information are paramount considerations for a business. For this, employers usually incorporate restrictive covenants such as non-compete and non-solicit in employment contracts to prevent employees from engaging in certain activities after their employment ends. In recent years, Indian Courts have witnessed a significant shift in their approach to the enforceability of non-compete and non-solicit clauses, reflecting the evolving landscape of employment law and business practices. This article attempts to examine the emerging trends in enforceability of these restrictive covenants. A Non-Compete Agreement is a contractual arrangement between an employer and an employee, which restricts the employee from engaging in a similar business or profession that competes with the employer’s business. These may even be for a specified period and within a certain geographical area, whereas a Non-Solicitation Agreement is another type of contract that focuses on preventing former employees from soliciting the employer’s clients, customers, or other employees for the benefit of a competitor. The fairness of Non-Compete and Non-Solicitation Agreements has been a subject of ongoing debates and litigations. While these agreements can protect a company’s interests, however they can also limit an employee’s career opportunities. Historically, Indian Courts have been reluctant to enforce post-employment non-compete agreements, considering them as restraints on trade under section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1972, which states that “every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.” The Indian Constitution under article 19(1)(g) guarantees the right to carry on any business, trade, or profession to the citizens of the country. However, any contract in restraint of trade is considered void as per section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1972. Thus, while a non-compete clause during employment is valid, one after employment termination is void. In Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. The Century Spinning and Mfg. Co.[1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a non-compete clause during the term of employment is valid and enforceable. The Court noted that such clauses are necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate business interests, including trade secrets and confidential information. However, the Court also emphasized that post-termination non-compete clauses must be reasonable and not overly restrictive. The Court stated that such clauses should not impose an undue hardship on the former employee or be against public policy. The reasonableness of a post-termination non-compete clause will be determined based on factors such as the duration of the restriction, the geographic scope, and the nature of the prohibited conduct. In Percept D’Mark (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Zaheer Khan & Anr.[2], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a blanket restriction on an employee’s right to engage in a similar trade, business or profession is not enforceable. TRENDS IN ENFORCEMENT LITIGATION 1. Industry-Specific Considerations: The Courts are increasingly recognizing the unique challenges faced by certain sectors, such as IT, pharmaceuticals, and financial services. In these knowledge-driven industries, the protection of trade secrets and client relationships is considered paramount. Consequently, judges are more inclined to uphold reasonable non-compete and non-solicit provisions that safeguard legitimate business interests. In Wipro Limited v. Beckman Coulter International[3], the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi examined the facts involving a non-solicitation clause (involving employees of each other) in a commercial contract between the two contracting parties. The Hon’ble High Court held that the non-solicitation clause between the two commercial parties can be held as valid, and the respondent (Beckman Coulter) cannot offer inducement to employees of Wipro Ltd. (petitioner) to join the respondent (Beckman Coulter). 2. Reasonableness Test: A key trend is the application of a “reasonableness test” when evaluating the enforceability of these clauses. Courts are examining factors such as: · Duration of the restriction · Geographical scope · Nature of prohibited activities · Employee’s role and access to sensitive information 3. Emphasis on Non-Solicit Over Non-Compete: There is a growing tendency to view non-solicit agreements more favorably than broad non-compete clauses. In Stellar Information Technology Private Limited v. Rakesh Kumar & Ors.[4], the Hon’ble Delhi High Court recognized that preventing an ex-employee from soliciting clients or colleagues is often a more proportionate measure than completely barring them from working in their field of expertise. 4. Garden Leave Provisions: The concept of “garden leave,” where an employee remains on the payroll but is asked to stay away from work during the notice period, is gaining traction. Courts are more likely to enforce non-compete clauses if the employer compensates the employee during the restricted period. 5. Injunctive Relief and Damages: While courts remain cautious about granting injunctions to enforce non-compete agreements, they are more willing to do so in cases of clear breach of non-solicit clauses, especially when couples with misuse of confidential information. Additionally, there’s an increased focus on quantifying and awarding damages for breached, rather than relying solely or injunctive relief. In Embee Software Private Limited v Samir Kumar Shaw[5], the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court found that the petitioner used proprietary software and developed unique methods to service each of its clients. The respondents who were former employees who serviced the petitioner’s clients had knowledge of the proprietary technology and unique methods that the petitioner used. The High Court found that the respondents’ knowledge of petitioner’s proprietary information put them in a position to approach the petitioner’s clients (and poach them away) and allowed injunction to the petitioner. 6. Contractual Clarity and Negotiation: Recent litigation has highlighted the importance of clear, unambiguous language in drafting these clauses, wherein the Courts are placing greater emphasis on whether the employee had a fair opportunity to negotiate the terms, particularly for senior executives while looking into the enforceability of such restrictive covenants. 7. International Influence: As Indian companies expand globally and multinational corporations increase their presence in India, courts are showing a willingness to consider international best practices and jurisprudence in this area, while still adhering to the principles of Indian contract law. CONCLUSION Indian courts have been willing to enforce a non-compete restriction during the
Trends in Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Enforcement Litigation in India Read More »
