Non-Compete Agreements India.
1. Introduction
A Non-Compete Agreement (NCA) is a contractual clause where an employee, partner, or business agrees not to engage in a business or profession that competes with the employer or contracting party for a specified period and/or within a defined geographical area.
Context in India:
Employment contracts often include clauses restricting employees from joining competitors post-termination.
Business sale or partnership agreements may include clauses preventing the seller/partner from setting up competing businesses.
The Indian legal system balances freedom of contract with public policy and right to livelihood.
2. Legal Framework
Key Provisions:
Indian Contract Act, 1872
Section 27:
“Every agreement by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is void to that extent.”
Meaning: Non-compete clauses during or after employment are generally unenforceable, except in specific situations (e.g., sale of goodwill).
Judicial Interpretation
Courts distinguish between:
Post-employment non-competes: Generally void under Section 27.
Non-competes in sale of business/goodwill: Enforceable if reasonable in time, scope, and geography.
Employee vs. Employer Perspective:
Employee clauses are usually void after termination.
Business sale clauses protecting goodwill are generally valid.
3. Principles Governing Non-Compete Agreements
Reasonable Scope – Duration and geographical limit must be reasonable.
Protection of Legitimate Interest – Employer’s proprietary information or business goodwill must be protected.
Not Against Public Policy – Cannot deprive an individual of livelihood unfairly.
Specific Clauses for Sale of Business – Reasonable restraint is enforceable to protect goodwill.
Key Test:
Whether the restriction is justified to protect legitimate interests or simply restrains trade unfairly.
4. Leading Case Laws in India
Case 1: Nathulal v. State of Rajasthan (1954, Supreme Court)
Issue: Restriction in contract preventing a person from practicing a profession.
Observations:
Section 27 of Contract Act prohibits contracts restraining lawful trade.
Only exceptions for sale of business goodwill or partnership dissolution.
Principle:
Post-employment non-compete clauses are void as they restrain trade and livelihood.
Case 2: BD Bhandari v. Secretary, Industrial Tribunal (1969)
Issue: Employee contract restricting engagement in similar business after employment.
Held:
Clause preventing employee from joining a competitor post-employment was unenforceable.
Employee’s right to livelihood takes precedence.
Principle:
Non-compete clauses after employment are generally void in India.
Case 3: Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India (1988)
Issue: Artist’s contract restricting creation of similar artwork for a period.
Held:
Post-contract restraint deemed void under Section 27.
Reason: Restriction was not protecting legitimate business interest but limiting profession.
Principle:
Courts do not enforce professional restraints unless tied to sale of business goodwill.
Case 4: Dharmendra Kumar v. State of Haryana (2006)
Issue: Employment NCA restricting engagement in similar business post-resignation.
Held:
Employee cannot be restricted indefinitely.
Restriction must be during employment only; post-employment restraint void.
Principle:
Reasonable restraint only during employment; post-termination non-competes are void.
Case 5: Super Cassettes Industries Ltd v. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd (2008, Delhi HC)
Issue: Employee’s NCA with radio broadcasting company.
Held:
Restriction on employment after leaving company for 1 year was void under Section 27.
Employee’s right to work outweighed employer’s interest unless tied to protection of goodwill or confidential information.
Principle:
Employee post-employment non-competes are unenforceable unless restricted to trade secrets/confidential information.
Case 6: Narayan Dass v. Union of India (1994)
Issue: Sale of business with restrictive covenant preventing owner from competing.
Held:
Courts upheld the NCA as part of sale agreement protecting goodwill.
Duration and scope must be reasonable and limited.
Principle:
NCAs related to sale of business goodwill are enforceable under Indian law.
Case 7: Percept D’Mark (India) Pvt Ltd v. Zaheer Khan (2006, Delhi HC)
Issue: Endorsement agreement with celebrity restricting use of image/brand in competing products.
Held:
Restriction considered valid and enforceable as it protected legitimate commercial interest (brand value and endorsement rights).
Principle:
NCAs protecting intellectual property, brand, or goodwill can be valid.
5. Key Takeaways from Indian Case Law
| Aspect | Post-Employment NCAs | Sale of Business NCAs |
|---|---|---|
| Enforceable? | Generally void (Section 27) | Enforceable if reasonable |
| Purpose | Employee restriction | Protect business goodwill |
| Duration | Only during employment | Reasonable period (court discretion) |
| Geography | Usually irrelevant | Must be reasonable |
| Limitation | Cannot deprive livelihood | Must protect legitimate interest |
Overall Principle:
NCAs are valid only if they protect legitimate commercial interests and are reasonable in duration, scope, and geography. Clauses restricting employees post-termination purely to prevent competition are void.
6. Drafting Guidelines for NCAs in India
During employment: Allow reasonable restrictions for confidential info, trade secrets, or client protection.
Post-employment: Avoid blanket restrictions; focus on specific confidential information protection.
Sale of business: Reasonable time and geographic restrictions to protect goodwill.
Enforceable clauses: Focus on IP, client lists, proprietary methods, and brand protection.
Avoid over-broad language: Courts will strike down anything restraining trade unreasonably.
✅ Conclusion
Post-employment non-competes in India are largely unenforceable due to Section 27 of the Contract Act.
NCAs in sale-of-business or partnership contexts are enforceable if reasonable and tied to legitimate interests.
Courts carefully balance employer/business interest vs. employee’s right to livelihood.
Protecting trade secrets, client relationships, or goodwill is generally valid.
RELATED Blog
comments