Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Employment
Contracts in India
Enforceability of Restrictive
Covenants
August 2014
About NDA
Nishith Desai Associates (NDA) is a research based international law firm with offices in Mumbai, Bangalore,
Silicon Valley, Singapore, New Delhi, Munich. We specialize in strategic legal, regulatory and tax advice coupled
with industry expertise in an integrated manner. We focus on niche areas in which we provide significant value
and are invariably involved in select highly complex, innovative transactions. Our key clients include marquee
repeat Fortune 500 clientele.
Core practice areas include International Tax, International Tax Litigation, Litigation & Dispute Resolution,
Fund Formation, Fund Investments, Capital Markets, Employment and HR, Intellectual Property, Corporate
& Securities Law, Competition Law, Mergers & Acquisitions, JVs & Restructuring, General Commercial Law
and Succession and Estate Planning. Our specialized industry niches include financial services, IT and telecom,
pharma and life sciences, education, media and entertainment, real estate and infrastructure.
Nishith Desai Associates has been ranked as the Most Innovative Indian Law Firm (2014) and the Second Most
Innovative Asia - Pacific Law Firm (2014) at the Innovative Lawyers Asia-Pacific Awards by the Financial Times
- RSG Consulting. IFLR1000 has ranked Nishith Desai Associates in Tier 1 for Private Equity (2014). Chambers
and Partners has ranked us as # 1 for Tax and Technology-Media-Telecom (2014). Legal 500 has ranked us in tier
1 for Investment Funds, Tax and Technology-Media-Telecom (TMT) practices (2011/2012/2013/2014). IBLJ (India
Business Law Journal) has awarded Nishith Desai Associates for Private equity & venture capital, Structured
finance & securitization, TMT and Taxation in 2014. IDEX Legal has recognized Nishith Desai as the Managing
Partner of the Year (2014). Legal Era, a prestigious Legal Media Group has recognized Nishith Desai Associates
as the Best Tax Law Firm of the Year (2013). Chambers & Partners has ranked us as # 1 for Tax, TMT and Private
Equity (2013). For the third consecutive year, International Financial Law Review (a Euromoney publication) has
recognized us as the Indian Firm of the Year (2012) for our Technology - Media - Telecom (TMT) practice. We
have been named an ASIAN-MENA COUNSEL IN-HOUSE COMMUNITY FIRM OF THE YEAR in India for Life
Sciences practice (2012) and also for International Arbitration (2011). We have received honorable mentions in
Asian MENA Counsel Magazine for Alternative Investment Funds, Antitrust/Competition, Corporate and M&A,
TMT and being Most Responsive Domestic Firm (2012). We have been ranked as the best performing Indian
law firm of the year by the RSG India Consulting in its client satisfaction report (2011). Chambers & Partners has
ranked us # 1 for Tax, TMT and Real Estate FDI (2011). Weve received honorable mentions in Asian MENA
Counsel Magazine for Alternative Investment Funds, International Arbitration, Real Estate and Taxation for the
year 2010. We have been adjudged the winner of the Indian Law Firm of the Year 2010 for TMT by IFLR. We have
won the prestigious Asian-Counsels Socially Responsible Deals of the Year 2009 by Pacific Business Press, in
addition to being Asian-Counsel Firm of the Year 2009 for the practice areas of Private Equity and Taxation in
India. Indian Business Law Journal listed our Tax, PE & VC and Technology-Media-Telecom (TMT) practices in
the India Law Firm Awards 2009. Legal 500 (Asia-Pacific) has also ranked us #1 in these practices for 2009-2010.
We have been ranked the highest for Quality in the Financial Times RSG Consulting ranking of Indian law
firms in 2009. The Tax Directors Handbook, 2009 lauded us for our constant and innovative out-of-the-box ideas.
Other past recognitions include being named the Indian Law Firm of the Year 2000 and Asian Law Firm of the
Year (Pro Bono) 2001 by the International Financial Law Review, a Euromoney publication. In an Asia survey
by International Tax Review (September 2003), we were voted as a top-ranking law firm and recognized for our
cross-border structuring work.
Our research oriented approach has also led to the team members being recognized and felicitated for thought
leadership. Consecutively for the fifth year in 2010, NDAites have won the global competition for dissertations
at the International Bar Association. Nishith Desai, Founder of Nishith Desai Associates, has been voted External
Counsel of the Year 2009 by Asian Counsel and Pacific Business Press and the Most in Demand Practitioners by
Chambers Asia 2009. He has also been ranked No. 28 in a global Top 50 Gold List by Tax Business, a UK-based
journal for the international tax community. He is listed in the Lex Witness Hall of fame: Top 50 individuals
who have helped shape the legal landscape of modern India. He is also the recipient of Prof. Yunus Social
Business Pioneer of India 2010 award.
We believe strongly in constant knowledge expansion and have developed dynamic Knowledge Management
(KM) and Continuing Education (CE) programs, conducted both in-house and for select invitees. KM and
CE programs cover key events, global and national trends as they unfold and examine case studies, debate and
analyze emerging legal, regulatory and tax issues, serving as an effective forum for cross pollination of ideas.
Our trust-based, non-hierarchical, democratically managed organization that leverages research and knowledge
to deliver premium services, high value, and a unique employer proposition has now been developed into
a global case study and published by John Wiley & Sons, USA in a feature titled Management by Trust in a
Democratic Enterprise: A Law Firm Shapes Organizational Behavior to Create Competitive Advantage in the
September 2009 issue of Global Business and Organizational Excellence (GBOE).
Please see the last page of this paper for the most recent research papers by our experts.
Disclaimer
This report is a copyright of Nishith Desai Associates. No reader should act on the basis of any statement
contained herein without seeking professional advice. The authors and the firm expressly disclaim all and any
liability to any person who has read this report, or otherwise, in respect of anything, and of consequences of
anything done, or omitted to be done by any such person in reliance upon the contents of this report.
Contact
For any help or assistance please email us on ndaconnect@nishithdesai.com or
visit us at www.nishithdesai.com
Contents
1.
INTRODUCTION 01
I. Pre-Hire 02
II. During Employment 03
III.
Termination 03
IV. Post Termination 03
I. Non-Competition Restriction 05
II. Non-Solicitation of Employees and Customers 06
III. Non- Disclosure of Confidential Information and Trade Secrets 08
IV. Distinction Between Trade Secrets and Confidential Information 10
V. Training Bonds 10
VI. Non-Poaching Agreements 11
5.
EMERGING TRENDS 13
6. INDEX OF CASES 14
1. Introduction
The employer-employee relationship is, and has to the manner in which the employees are allowed
always been, in a constant state of evolution. As the to use and disseminate the information they become
nature of this relationship evolves and changes, privy to solely as a consequence of being in the
so does the nature of disputes that arise as a result service of the employer.
of diverging interests which the employer and
employees seek to protect in their interaction with When contrasted with the employees constitutional
each other and the society in general. Several laws and statutory rights to pursue occupations of
and legislations have been drafted to create an their choice and earn a livelihood, by using the
appropriate framework to address these concerns full array of knowledge and skill at their disposal,
with an objective to reasonably balance the interests the diverging interests sought to be advanced by
of employers and employees. Such employment laws employers (protection of confidential information
have a broad ambit and include within their scope to retain the competitive edge) promise to form a
all areas of the employer-employee relationship and fertile ground for contentious disputes between the
are not merely restricted to contractual issues and/or employers and employees in the near future.
workplace discrimination.
This research publication focuses on the analysis
Globalization coupled with easy accessibility of of the legal framework existing in India to address
advanced technology has had a phenomenal impact such emerging concerns in the relationship between
on the employer-employee relationship in India. employers and employees along with developments
The new economic policy announced in 1991 through case laws.
signaled a decisive shift in economic policies of the
government from regulation to liberalization and The legislations governing several aspects of the
the advent of various multinational companies has employer-employee relationship are so numerous,
substantially changed the relationship between complex and ambiguous, existing both at the
employers and employees and the disputes arising national and state level, that they tend to promote
between them. While an increasingly liberalized litigation rather than providing easy solutions
market has promoted healthy competition between to potential problems. However, concerns of
businesses, it has also resulted in accordance of employers and employees relating to protection of
significant importance to protection of innovative confidential information, non-disclosure and non-
ideas, proprietary information, internal workings solicitation have not yet been addressed through
and mechanisms which lend firms the competitive legislation in India, thus warranting recourse to
edge to thrive in the present economic environment. judicial interpretation and common law. There is
The objective to protect the competitive advantage profound inconsistency within the judiciary itself
has in turn resulted in concerns of potential misuse when it comes to developing appropriate standards
of confidential and proprietary information of of review for addressing these emerging contentious
employers by employees, especially during, and post employment related issues relating to confidentiality
termination of, their employment. and non-solicitation.
With a distinctive cross border flavour in This paper seeks to provide an overview of the
contemporary transactions, instances of scenarios where such disputes may arise between
organizations attempting to protect their trade employers and employees, and highlights the need
secrets and confidential information manifest for formulation of a coherent legal framework
themselves in the use of restrictive agreements within which to address such concerns. Further, this
between employers and employees, which place paper also assesses the validity of various restrictive
limitations and restrictions on the latter pertaining covenants which are increasingly being incorporated
in employment contracts.
1. Vikram Shroff & Neha Sinha, Background Checks in India, SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (2012) available at http://www.
shrmindia.org/knowledge-center/talent-acquisition/background-investigations/background-checks-india.
2. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights Vol.11, Nov 2006, pp, 397-408: http://www.rmarkhalligan2.com/trade/articles.asp?id=next¤tId=2 (18
April 2006).
An agreement in restraint of trade has been defined In India, due to the heavy bargaining power of the
as one in which a party agrees with any other employers, the trend is for the courts to protect the
party to restrict his liberty in the future to carry on rights of the employee and adopt an interpretation
trade with other persons who are not parties to the favourable to the employee.
contract in such a manner as he chooses.4 As an
exception to this general rule, agreements under Section 27 of the Contract Act has been applied in
which one party sells his goodwill to another, while the context of (1) employer - employee contracts, (2)
agreeing not to carry on a similar business within contracts with partners, (3) dealer contracts and (4)
specified local limits, are valid, provided such miscellaneous cases.
agreements appear to the court to be reasonable.
While it is a settled position of law that restrictive
Article 19 (g) of the Constitution of India clearly agreements bind current employees in lawful
provides every citizen the right to practice any employment of the employer throughout the
profession, trade or business. This is not an absolute duration of the contract6, the position of law
right and reasonable restrictions can be placed on regarding validity of such restraints on employees
this right in the interest of the public, the courts have after termination of contract is more contentious and
always been weary of upholding such restrictions adjudicated before courts.
and have kept the interpretation of this provision
flexible so as to ensure that principles of justice, The Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) in
morality and fairness are aptly applied, depending Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spg & Mfg Co.
upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Ltd7 enumerated the tests to determine the validity
of restrictive agreements in terms of Section 27 of
Employers often tend to incorporate restrictive the Contract Act. In this case, a foreign producer
covenants in the agreement to protect their collaborated with a company manufacturing tyre
confidential information and trade secrets as well as cord yarn by an agreement which stated that the
their growing business. For any restrictive covenant company would maintain secrecy of all technical
to fall within the ambit of Section 27 of the Contract information. In pursuance of the agreement, the
Act, the agreement has to be in restraint of trade. company signed a non-disclosure agreement with
Unlike the law in the United Kingdom, the Contract the appellant, at the time of his employment.
Act does not distinguish between partial and total
restraint of trade, if the clause amounts to restraint
3. Section 27 of the 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.
Exception 1: Saving of agreement not to carry on business of which good will is sold - One who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the
buyer to refrain from carrying on a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill
from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business
4. Petrofina (Great Britain) Ltd. v. Martin, (1966) Ch. 146.
5. Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. The Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1967) 2 SCR 378
6. Superintendence Co. of India Pvt. Ltd. v. Krishan Murgai, AIR 1980 SC 1717.
7. AIR 1967 SC 1098.
such approach. The Madras High Court laid down However there are certain non-solicitation clauses
the standard to establish non-solicitation: which do not amount to restraint of trade, business
or profession and would not be subject to Section 27
of the Contract Act, as held by the Delhi High Court
in Wipro Ltd. v. Beckman Coulter International
SA14 (Wipro). In this case, Wipro worked as a sole
and exclusive canvassing representative/distributor
solicitation is essentially a question of fact. for Beckman Coulter International, S.A., for 17
The appellant should prove that the respondent years. Beckman Coulter decided to undertake direct
approached their erstwhile customers and only on operations in India and issued advertisement seeking
account of such solicitation, customers placed orders employment from people and giving preference to
with the respondent. Mere production of quotation candidates having experience in having handled
would not serve the purpose. It is not as if the respondents product or similar products. Wipro
appellant is without any remedy. In case the Court Limited alleged that such advertisement was in
ultimately holds that the appellant has got a case violation of non-solicitation clause and approached
on merits, they can be compensated by awarding the court for prohibiting solicitation and claiming
damages. The supplies made by the respondent to damages. It was held that since the restrictions had
the erstwhile customers of the appellant would be not been imposed on the employees but on Wipro
borne out by records. There would be no difficulty and Beckman Coulter, Section 27 would not be
to the appellant to prove that inspite of entering attracted and thus the agreement was held not in
into a non-disclosure agreement, respondent have restraint of trade. In Wipro, the Delhi High Court
solicited customers and pursuant to such solicitation highlighted the following salient aspects in this
they have actually supplied castings. When there context:
is such an alternative remedy, question of issuing a
prohibitory injunction does not arise. i. Negative covenants tied up with positive
covenants during the subsistence of a contact be
it of employment, partnership, commerce, agency
or the like, would not normally be regarded as
being in restraint of trade, business of profession
unless the same are unconscionable or wholly
The Secan Invescast judgment states that such
one-sided;
clauses may be valid if reasonable restrictions such
as distance, time limit (reasonable time frame), ii. Negative covenants between employer and
protection and non-usage of trade secrets and employee contracts pertaining to the period post
goodwill are imposed on former employees. termination and restricting an employees right
to seek employment and/or to do business in the
The increasing significance of protecting client same field as the employer would be in restraint
information is brought out in Embee Software Pvt. of trade and, therefore, a stipulation to this effect
Ltd. v. Samir Kumar Shaw,12 wherein the Calcutta in the contract would be void. In other words, no
High Court has recently held that acts of soliciting employee can be confronted with the situation
committed by former employees takes such active where he has to either work for the present
form that it induces the customers of the former employer or be forced to idleness;
employer to break their contract with the former
iii. While construing a restrictive or negative
employer and enter into a contract with the former
covenant and for determining whether such
employee, or prevents other persons from entering
covenant is in restraint of trade, business or
into contracts with the former employer cannot
profession or not, the courts take a stricter
be permitted. This decision echoes the decision
view in employer-employee contracts than in
in Crowson Fabrics Ltd. v. Rider13, where it was
other contracts, such as partnership contracts,
held that even though the act of retaining various
collaboration contracts, franchise contracts,
documents belonging to the ex-employer concerning
agency/distributorship contracts, commercial
customer and supplier contact details by the
contracts. The reason being that in the latter kind
employees during employment did not amount to a
of contracts, the parties are expected to have dealt
breach of confidentiality, such illegitimate actions
with each other on more or less an equal footing,
constituted a breach of employees duty of fidelity.
whereas in employer-employee contracts, the is mandatory under any law in force. The employee
norm is that the employer has an advantage over further agrees that he shall not discuss or disclose
the employee and it is quite often the case that the confidential information of the company to any
employees have to sign standard form contracts person or business unrelated to the company.
or not be employed at all;
In Escorts Const. Ltd v. Action Const.16, the Delhi
iv. The question of reasonableness as also the
High Court restrained Escorts from manufacturing,
question of whether the restraint is partial
selling or offering for sale the Pick-N-Carry
or complete is not required to be considered
Mobile Cranes that were a substantial imitation
at all whenever an issue arises as to whether
or reproduction of the industrial drawings of the
a particular term of a contract is or is not in
Plaintiffs, or from using in any other manner
restraint of trade, business or profession.
whatsoever, the technical know-how. In Burlington
In GEA Energy System India Ltd. v. Germanischer Home Shopping Pvt. Ltd.v. Rajnish Chibber17, the
Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft15, the Madras High Court Delhi High Court again restrained carrying on of any
had occasion to consider the operation of Section 27 business including mail order business by utilizing
in the context of two joint venture partners. In this the list of clientele/customers included in the
case, Defendant had terminated the Joint Venture database of the petitioner.
Agreement (Agreement) and Plaintiff sought to
restrain Defendant from setting up a similar business In Diljeet Titus v. Mr. Alfred A. Adebare and Others18,
in India. Although there were several other issues, the defendant, an advocate, was working at the
the High Court examined the contention of the plaintiffs law firm. On termination of employment,
parties with regard to restraining Defendant from the defendant took away important confidential
carrying on business in India and its legality in the business data, such as client lists and proprietary
context of Section 27 of the Contract Act. drafts, belonging to the plaintiff. The defendants
contended that, they were the owners of the
The Madras High Court observed that the restrictive copyright work as it was done by them during their
clause only stated that Defendant may not carry employment since the relation between parties was
on a business which is prejudicial to the Plaintiff not that of an employer and employee. The Delhi
company and as such did not restrict the Defendant High Court rejected this contention and ruled that
in absolute terms from carrying on any business. The the plaintiff had a clear right in the material taken
Madras High Court further noted that the parties away by the defendant. Accordingly, the Delhi
entered into the Agreement of their own free will High Court restrained the defendant from using
and as per the terms of the Agreement, had equal the information taken away illegally. It should be
bargaining power. The terms were not one-sided and noted that the Delhi High Court did not prohibit
did not betray weakness of any one party. It would the defendants from carrying on a similar service.
thus be seen that the same test as is applicable in the The defendants were only restrained from using
context of employment contracts, is substantially the information they took, as this was necessary
applicable even in the context of joint venture to protect the interests of the plaintiff. 19 The
agreements. relationship between the parties was in the nature of
a contract of service.
15. [2009]149CompCas689(Mad)
16. Escorts Const. Equipment Ltd v. Action Const. Equipment P. Ltd ., AIR 1999 Delhi 73.
17. Burlington Home Shopping Pvt. Ltd.v. Rajnish Chibber, MANU/DE/0718/1995: 61(1995)DLT6
18. 2006 (32) PTC 609 (Del).
19. Priti Suri & Nikita Ved, Enforcing Employee Non Compete Covenants, ASIA LAW INDIA INVESTOR 7 (2008) http://www.psalegal.com/upload/pub-
lication/assocFile/JanuaryIssue_1288776504.pdf
20. American Express Bank Ltd. v. Ms. Priya Puri, 2006 (110) FLR1061
Delhi High Court rejected this plea on the grounds In Abhinav Gupta v. State of Haryana23, the accused,
that The inconvenience caused to the defendant an ex-employee of Company A had resigned and
shall be much more in case the injunction as prayed joined Company B after final clearance from
by the plaintiff is granted in his favour. Company A. During his course of exit interview
he had continuously maintained that he would
The Delhi High Court further observed that in not be joining any company which was in direct
order to claim copyrights, the plaintiff should have competition with Company A. He also agreed that
abridged, arranged and/or done something which all the confidential information acquired by him
would show that they have done something with the during his tenure at work shall be kept confidential
material which is available in public domain so as to at all times. However, two weeks later, it came to
claim exclusive rights in that. the knowledge of Company A that he had joined
Company B, which was its direct competitor. Later, it
In addition to restraining employees from using was also discovered that the accused had transferred
such confidential information post termination, or downloaded various confidential information of
by way of seeking injunction or claiming damages, Company A into his personal e-mail id. Screenshots
the criminal legislation also comes to the aid of of the mail id of the accused was produced by
employers and provides them with an opportunity Company A which showed that such information
to take criminal action against the employees was passed on to Company B. Thus, the Court was of
in addition to seeking civil remedies. Several the view that such act amounted to hacking under
provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)21 and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000;
Information Technology Act, 2000 are also attracted cheating and dishonestly inducing of property under
in case of breach of confidentiality and disclosure Section 420 of IPC and also amounted to criminal
provisions and allow criminal prosecution and breach of trust under Section 406 of IPC.
imprisonment or fine or both as required with
increasing dependence on technology, remedies have The uncertainty of the judicial decisions over the
been provided under the Information Technology non-compete clauses has resulted in the corporate
Act, 2000 to deal with hacking (Section 66); causing industry developing and taking recourse to a concept
damage to computer system (Section 43); tampering called garden leave, having its genesis in England24,
with computer source document (Section 65); under which employees are paid their full salary
punishment for violation of privacy policy (Section during the period in which they are restrained from
66E); etc.; may also be considered by the employer as competing.
remedies against the employee in case of breach of
confidentiality and disclosure provisions. However, when the validity of garden leave
clauses came for consideration before the Bombay
In Pyarelal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan22, an High Court it was argued that the Garden Leave
employee was convicted for theft under Section Clause is prima facie in restraint of trade and is
378 of IPC. The employee had removed certain hit by Section 27 of the Contract Act. The effect of
confidential information from the government the clause is to prohibit the employee from taking
department and had passed it to a friend who in turn up any employment during the period of three
had substituted the documents. This friend further months on the cessation of the employment. The
removed certain documents while substituting Court, accepting the argument, held that obstructing
them with others. Thereafter, the file was returned an employee who has left service from obtaining
the next day. The Supreme Court held that even gainful employment elsewhere is not fair or
temporary removal of documents with a dishonest proper.25
intention could cause loss or harm and hence, would
be considered theft.
21. IPC provisions like Section 381(Theft by clerk or servant which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 7 years and fine); Section
403(Dishonest misappropriation of property which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 2 years or fine or both); Section 405
(Criminal breach of trust which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 3 years or fine or both); Section 408(Criminal breach of trust
by a clerk or servant which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 7 years and fine); Section 415(Cheating which is punishable with
imprisonment which may extend to 1 year or fine or both); can also be resorted to by the employers in case of breach of confidentiality on part of the
employees post-employment period.
22. AIR 1963 SC 1094
23. 2008 CriLJ 4356
24. Evening Standard Co. Ltd. v. Henderson, [1987] I.R.L.R. 64. (This case is credited with giving rise to the concept of garden leave. The court found that
Henderson ought not, pending trial, to be allowed to do the very thing which his contract was intended to stop him doing, namely working for
somebody else during the period of his contract.
25. VFS Global Services Private Limited v. Mr. Suprit Roy, 2008 (2) Bom. CR 446, 2008 (3) MhLj 266.
31. MANU/DE/6554/2011
32. 1997 LLR 500
33. Embee Software Private Ltd v. Samir Kumar Shaw & Ors. 2012(3)CHN250
5. Emerging Trends
The discussion above on Section 27 of the Contract competing with the same establishment or from
Act clearly states that restraints can be enforced working with the competitors. These agreements
only when the employee is in the service of the entered between the employer and the employee
employer and these restraints cannot be enforced should not hamper the growth of employee as well
after the employee leaves service of the employer as secure the interests of the employer. The approach
irrespective of whether the employee leaves used by the Supreme Court in Percept DMark (India)
voluntarily or as a result of his services being Pvt. Ltd. v. Zaheer Khan & Anr36 seems to be the most
terminated.34 However, the only restrictions that appropriate approach to address concerns arising out
would be enforceable in an Indian court after the of restrictive covenants:
termination of employment would be non-disclosure
of confidential information and non-solicitation of
customers and employees.
34. Supra at fn 6
35. AIR1995 SC 2372.
36. AIR 2006 SC 3426.
37. Law Commission of India Report, 1958 Available at http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/1-50/Report13.pdf, last seen at February 26, 2014.
6. Index of Cases
Sr. Cases Relevant Paragraphs Page
No.
1. Petrofina (Great Britain) v. An agreement in restraint of trade is one in which a party agrees 5
Martin, (1966) Ch. 146. with any other party to restrict his liberty in the future to carry on
trade with other persons who are not parties to the contract in such
a manner as he chooses.
2. Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Section 27 itself is succinct and doesnt offer insight as to what 5
The Century Spinning Mfg. Co. kinds of restraints are valid; the qualification of reasonable
Ltd. (1967)2 SCR 378. restraints being valid and enforceable has been read into Section
27 by the courts.
15. Pyarelal Bhargava v. State of [Allegation of theft for temporary removal of files by employee of 9
Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1094 Government] The Supreme Court held that even temporary removal
of documents with a dishonest intention could cause loss or harm
and hence, would be considered theft.
16. Abhinav Gupta v. State of [Allegation of hacking by employer]The Court was of the view 9
Haryana , 2008 CriLJ 4356 that the act of transferring or downloading various confidential
information of the company into personal e-mail id. amounted to
hacking under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000;
cheating and dishonestly inducing of property underSection 420
of IPC and also amounted to criminal breach of trust under Section
406 of IPC.
17. Evening Standard Co. Ltd. v. [Legitimate recognition to Garden leave clauses] The court held that 9
Henderson, [1987] I.R.L.R. 64. employee ought not, pending trial, to be allowed to do the very thing
which his contract
was intended to stop him doing, namely working for somebody else
during the period of his contract.
18. VFS Global Services Private To obstruct on employee who has left service from obtaining gainful 9
Limited v. Mr. Suprit Roy, 2008 employment elsewhere is not fair or proper.-[holding Garden Leave
(2) Bom. CR 446, 2008 (3) clauses in restraint of trade under Section 27 of The Contract Act,
MhLj 266. 1872]
19. Polymer Papers Limited v. [Claiming trade secret against employee as an intellectual property 10
Gurmit Singh & Ors., AIR 2002 right] As per the facts as substantiated before the Delhi High Court,
Del 530 there was no agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant and
further, Plaintiff had not made disclosure of material facts and had
also not concealed information relating to the relation between
Plaintiff and the competing company that Defendant had joined.
Consequently, the Delhi High Court held that in any event, Plaintiff
was not entitled to discretionary relief of injunction. The Delhi
High Court further held that Plaintiff did not possess any exclusive
intellectual property rights in respect of the products in dispute
and hence there was no ground on which Plaintiff was entitled to
injunction.
20. Microsoft Corporation v. Kai Fu Microsoft alleged that Kai-fu Lee who had intimate knowledge of the 10
Lee & Ors, 05-2-23561-6 SEA companys trade secrets had violated a non-compete agreement
by defecting to Google. Preliminary Injunction was granted against
Lee from performing certain activities (eg: solicitation of Microsoft
customers) while working with new employer Google.
21. Faccenda Chicken v. Fowler, The English Court of Appeal classified confidential information into 10
[1986] 1 All E.R. 617 (C.A.) the following two categories: highly confidential information, which
are entitled to protection after the termination of the employment
relationship, and less confidential information which are not so
entitled.
22. Poeton Ltd v Horton, [2001] In creating the trinity of trade secrets, highly confidential 10
FSR 169 information and less confidential information, the Court came
up with a new challenge for other courts to identify where an
employees general knowledge ends and where the employees
confidentiality begins
23. Satyam Computer Services [In relation to employee abruptly leaving the company] The Andhra 10
Limited v. Ladella Ravichander, Pradesh High Court held that such action by the Defendant did
MANU/AP/0416/2011 not cause any damage or loss to the company and it would be
unreasonable to acquire such amount from the Defendant. An
amount of Rs. 100, 000 was fixed by the court as reasonable
damages taking into consideration the period of work and the fact
that no actual loss was caused to the Company.
24. M/s Sicpa India Limited v. Shri Reasonable damages awarded to employer for employees refusal to 11
Manas Pratim Deb, MANU/ pay his medical expenses at the end of the five years of bond.
DE/6554/2011
25. Toshnial Brothers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Sudden termination of contract- The Madras High Court held that 11
E.Eswarprasad & Ors, 1997 the employer was entitled to recover the stipulated damages, which
LLR 500 is a genuine pre-estimate by the parties of the damages incurred.
There is no requirement to prove separately any post-breach
damages. The employer is required to establish that the employee
was the beneficiary of special favour or concession or training at the
cost and expense wholly or in part of the employer and there had
been a breach of the undertaking by the beneficiary of the same. In
such cases, the breach would per se constitute the required legal
injury resulting for the employer due to breach of the contract.
Contacts
Vikram Shroff
vikram.shroff@nishithdesai.com
Moazzam Khan
moazzam.khan@nishithdesai.com
Payel Chatterjee
Payel.Chatterjee@nishithdesai.com
The following research papers and much more are available on our Knowledge Site: www.nishithdesai.com
NDA Insights
TITLE TYPE DATE
Jet Etihad Jet Gets a Co-Pilot M&A Lab January 2014
Apollos Bumpy Ride in Pursuit of Cooper M&A Lab January 2014
Diageo-USL- King of Good Times; Hands over Crown Jewel to Diageo M&A Lab January 2014
File Foreign Application Prosecution History With Indian Patent Office IP Lab 02 April 2013
Warburg - Future Capital - Deal Dissected M&A Lab 01 January 2013
Public M&A's in India: Takeover Code Dissected M&A Lab August 2013
Copyright Amendment Bill 2012 receives Indian Parliament's assent IP Lab September 2013
Real Financing - Onshore and Offshore Debt Funding Realty in India Realty Check 01 May 2012
Pharma Patent Case Study IP Lab 21 March 2012
Patni plays to iGate's tunes M&A Lab 04 January 2012
Vedanta Acquires Control Over Cairn India M&A Lab 03 January 2012
Corporate Citizenry in the face of Corruption Yes, Governance 15 September 2011
Matters!
Funding Real Estate Projects - Exit Challenges Realty Check 28 April 2011
Real Estate in India - A Practical Insight Realty Check 22 March 2011
Hero to ride without its 'Pillion Rider' M&A Lab 15 March 2011
Piramal - Abbott Deal: The Great Indian Pharma Story M&A Lab 05 August 2010
Bharti connects with Zain after two missed calls with MTN M&A Lab 05 June 2009
The Battle For Fame - Part I M&A Lab 01 April 2010
Research @ NDA
Research is the DNA of NDA. In early 1980s, our firm emerged from an extensive, and then pioneering, research
by Nishith M. Desai on the taxation of cross-border transactions. The research book written by him provided the
foundation for our international tax practice. Since then, we have relied upon research to be the cornerstone of
our practice development. Today, research is fully ingrained in the firms culture.
Research has offered us the way to create thought leadership in various areas of law and public policy. Through
research, we discover new thinking, approaches, skills, reflections on jurisprudence, and ultimately deliver
superior value to our clients.
Over the years, we have produced some outstanding research papers, reports and articles. Almost on a daily
basis, we analyze and offer our perspective on latest legal developments through our Hotlines. These Hotlines
provide immediate awareness and quick reference, and have been eagerly received. We also provide expanded
commentary on issues through detailed articles for publication in newspapers and periodicals for dissemination
to wider audience. Our NDA Insights dissect and analyze a published, distinctive legal transaction using multiple
lenses and offer various perspectives, including some even overlooked by the executors of the transaction.
We regularly write extensive research papers and disseminate them through our website. Although we invest
heavily in terms of associates time and expenses in our research activities, we are happy to provide unlimited
access to our research to our clients and the community for greater good.
Our research has also contributed to public policy discourse, helped state and central governments in drafting
statutes, and provided regulators with a much needed comparative base for rule making. Our ThinkTank
discourses on Taxation of eCommerce, Arbitration, and Direct Tax Code have been widely acknowledged.
As we continue to grow through our research-based approach, we are now in the second phase of establishing a
four-acre, state-of-the-art research center, just a 45-minute ferry ride from Mumbai but in the middle of verdant
hills of reclusive Alibaug-Raigadh district. The center will become the hub for research activities involving
our own associates as well as legal and tax researchers from world over. It will also provide the platform to
internationally renowned professionals to share their expertise and experience with our associates and select
clients.
We would love to hear from you about any suggestions you may have on our research reports. Please feel free to
contact us at
research@nishithdesai.com
93 B, Mittal Court,Nariman Point, 220 S California Ave., Suite 201, Prestige Loka, G01, 7/1 Brunton Rd,
Mumbai 400 021 India Palo Alto, CA 94306, USA Bangalore 560 025, India
Tel: +91 - 22 - 6669 5000 Tel: +1 - 650 - 325 7100 Tel: +91 - 80 - 6693 5000
Fax: +91 - 22 - 6669 5001 Fax: +1 - 650 - 325 7300 Fax: +91 - 80 - 6693 5001
Level 30,Six Battery Road, 3, North Avenue, Maker Maxity C-5, Defence Colony
Singapore 049909 Bandra Kurla Complex, New Delhi - 110024, India
Tel: +65 - 6550 9855 Mumbai 400 051, India Tel: +91 - 11 - 4906 5000
Fax: +65 - 6550 9856 Tel: +91 - 22 - 6159 5000 Fax: +91 - 11- 4906 5001
Fax: +91 - 22 - 6159 5001
MUNICH
Maximilianstrae 13
80539 Munich, Germany
Tel: +49 - 89 - 203006 - 268
Fax: +49 - 89 - 203006 - 450