QALVE

§ Insights · Legal Advisory & Documentation

Non-Compete, Non-Solicit and Confidentiality Clauses in India

30 October 2026 · 8 min read · General information, not legal advice — see the disclaimer.

Employment and commercial agreements often carry a non-compete, a non-solicit and a confidentiality clause. In India these three behave very differently. Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 voids agreements in restraint of trade, which makes post-termination non-competes largely unenforceable, while confidentiality obligations are widely enforced. This guide sets out what courts will and will not hold parties to.

Indian Contract Act, 1872 — ss. 27, 73, 74Specific Relief Act, 1963 — ss. 14, 38Information Technology Act, 2000Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XXXIX
In brief
  • An agreement by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business is void to that extent (section 27), subject to a narrow exception for the sale of goodwill.
  • Restraints during the term of employment or of a contract are enforceable; restraints operating after termination generally are not.
  • Confidentiality obligations are enforceable in contract and in equity, if the information is in fact confidential and identified.
  • Non-solicitation of customers and employees post-termination has been treated more strictly than confidentiality, and outcomes depend on wording and facts.

Section 27: the rule and its exception

Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act provides that every agreement by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind is, to that extent, void. The only statutory exception is for a seller of the goodwill of a business who agrees with the buyer to refrain from carrying on a similar business within specified local limits, so long as the buyer carries on a like business and the limits are reasonable. India has not adopted the English “reasonableness” test for restraints generally: the Supreme Court has held that a post-employment restraint is void even if reasonable, and treated the doctrine as a matter of public policy and of the right to livelihood.

How courts treat restraints — general position
RestraintDuring the termAfter termination
Non-compete — employeeEnforceable: exclusivity during employment is a lawful termGenerally void under section 27
Non-compete — sale of business goodwillN/AEnforceable if within the section 27 exception and reasonable in area and time
Non-compete — commercial exclusivity between businessesEnforceable as a term of the contractGenerally void if it extends beyond the contract term
Non-solicit — employeesEnforceableMixed: depends on wording and whether it restrains livelihood
Non-solicit — customersEnforceableMixed: depends on facts; more likely enforced if tied to confidential customer data
ConfidentialityEnforceableEnforceable if the information is genuinely confidential

Confidentiality — what makes it enforceable

  • The information is identified. A clause that protects “all information” is weaker than one that lists categories — source code, pricing models, supplier terms, customer data.
  • The information is actually confidential. Information in the public domain or general skill and knowledge is not protected.
  • The recipient is bound. Contract, and in equity the duty of confidence that arises from the circumstances in which information is shared.
  • Reasonable steps are taken. Access controls, marking and exit procedures show that the information was treated as secret.

Clauses that tend to hold

  • Exclusivity during employment or the term of the contract
  • Confidentiality that survives termination, for defined categories of information
  • Assignment of IP created in the course of the work
  • Notice periods and garden-leave arrangements paid during the notice

Clauses that tend to fail

  • Post-employment bar on working for any competitor for a fixed period
  • Liquidated damages for joining a competitor as a penalty
  • Perpetual, unbounded restrictions with no defined information
  • Restraints that effectively stop a person from earning a living in their field

Remedies

Where a clause is valid, the remedies are an injunction — interim under Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure and permanent under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 — and damages under section 73 of the Contract Act. Liquidated damages are limited to reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount named (section 74), so a clause that fixes a large amount as the price of leaving may be reduced. Courts do not grant specific performance of personal contracts of service, so a company cannot normally compel a former employee to return, only restrain breaches that are enforceable.

Drafting checklist

  • Replace post-termination non-competes with notice periods, garden leave and exclusivity during the term
  • List categories of confidential information and carve out public domain and general skill
  • State that confidentiality survives for a defined term or for as long as the information remains confidential
  • Include assignment of IP created in the course of the engagement
  • Add return-and-delete obligations on exit, and an exit certificate
  • Name the governing law and dispute resolution — see the drafting note

See contract drafting clauses and which IP right protects what.

Frequently asked

Can a non-compete be valid for six months only?

Indian courts have not accepted a time-limited exception for post-employment non-competes; the restraint is void as to the post-termination period regardless of duration, other than in the sale-of-goodwill setting.

Do non-competes work between companies?

During the contract, yes — as exclusivity. After the contract ends, a restraint that prevents either party from trading is void under section 27, subject to the goodwill exception.

Can a company stop a departing employee from using what they learned?

It can stop use of genuinely confidential information, and trade secrets, but not the employee’s general skill, knowledge and experience.

What about a clause requiring a bond or repayment on early exit?

Reasonable repayment of training costs actually incurred has been upheld in some cases; a penal amount unrelated to loss is vulnerable under section 74. The clause should be tied to documented cost.

Case law on section 27 and on post-employment covenants continues to develop in the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Confirm current authority for the clause in question. Not a substitute for advice from an advocate or chartered accountant on your facts.

Have a matter in this area? Start a matter