Are post-employment non-compete agreements enforceable in India?
No. India voids post-employment non-compete agreements by statute. Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 makes any agreement that restrains someone from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business void to that extent, and the Supreme Court has held that a service covenant operating after employment ends is void — a position it calls completely settled.
This makes India fundamentally different from a reasonableness jurisdiction such as England or Singapore. India codified the rule in 1872, so an Indian court does not weigh a post-employment covenant's duration or geography against the employer's interest — a clause that restrains a former employee from competing is simply void under Section 27 .
The Supreme Court settled the post-employment position decades ago. In Superintendence Co. of India v. Krishan Murgai, it held that a covenant extended past the end of the service is void under Section 27 .
The Court reaffirmed and generalized that rule in Percept D'Mark (India) v. Zaheer Khan, describing the law on post-contractual restraints as fixed .
The narrow things an Indian employer can protect — the goodwill it buys in an acquisition, its genuine confidential information, in-term exclusivity, and cost-based training bonds — are each addressed in the questions below.
Do not paper an Indian employee with a US- or UK-style non-compete form and assume a court will enforce or narrow it because it looks reasonable. India treats a post-employment non-compete as void rather than reforming it, so a covenant copied from a reasonableness jurisdiction gives an Indian employer no enforceable restraint at all.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
A.1 Indian Contract Act, 1872, § 27PDFSection 27 voids every agreement that restrains a person from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business, to that extent, subject to Section 27's own sale-of-goodwill exception and separate statutory carve-outs such as those in the Partnership Act.
Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.
See Indian Contract Act, 1872, § 27.
Case law · 1980-05-09
A.2 Superintendence Co. of India (P) Ltd. v. Krishan MurgaiThe Supreme Court held that under Section 27 a service covenant extended beyond the termination of the service is void.
Under Section 27 of the Contract Act, a service covenant extended beyond the termination of the service is void.
See Superintendence Co. of India (P) Ltd. v. Krishan Murgai, (1981) 2 SCC 246.
Case law · 2006-03-22
A.3 Percept D'Mark (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Zaheer KhanThe Supreme Court described the law governing post-contractual restraints as consistent, unchanging, and completely settled.
The legal position with regard to post-contractual covenants or restrictions has been consistent, unchanging and completely settled in our country.
See Percept D'Mark (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Zaheer Khan, (2006) 4 SCC 227.
Does it matter if an Indian non-compete is short, narrow, or paid for?
No. A post-employment non-compete does not become enforceable in India because it is limited to a few months, a small area, or supported by a payment. Unlike England's reasonableness doctrine, Section 27 admits no reasonableness or partial restraint saving for a post-term covenant unless it fits a statutory exception, and the Delhi High Court reaffirmed in 2025 that a restraint on post-employment work is void.
In Krishan Murgai, the Supreme Court drew the line that separates Indian law from the English approach: the reasonableness test that rescues a narrowly tailored covenant elsewhere does not apply to a Section 27 case at all, except within the sale-of-goodwill exception .
Percept states the operative rule directly: a covenant reaching past the term of the contract is void and unenforceable .
This is not a fading doctrine. In Varun Tyagi v. Daffodil Software, decided in June 2025, the Delhi High Court held that an employment-contract term restricting a worker's right to take up employment after the contract ends is void under Section 27 .
Do not try to save a post-employment non-compete by trimming its duration, shrinking its territory, or attaching a payment. None of those moves brings an Indian covenant within Section 27, because the statute has no reasonableness gateway for post-term restraints — the covenant is void either way.
Sources for this answer
Case law · 1980-05-09
B.1 Superintendence Co. of India (P) Ltd. v. Krishan MurgaiThe Supreme Court held that neither the reasonableness test nor the partial-restraint principle applies to a case governed by Section 27 unless it falls within Exception 1, foreclosing any reasonableness saving for a post-term covenant.
Neither the test of reasonableness nor the principle of that the restraint being partial was reasonable are applicable to a case governed by Section 27 of the Contract Act, unless it falls within Exception 1.
See Superintendence Co. of India (P) Ltd. v. Krishan Murgai, (1981) 2 SCC 246.
Case law · 2006-03-22
B.2 Percept D'Mark (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Zaheer KhanThe Supreme Court held that under Section 27 a restrictive covenant extending beyond the term of the contract is void and not enforceable.
Under Section 27 of the Contract Act (a) a restrictive covenant extending beyond the term of the contract is void and not enforceable.
See Percept D'Mark (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Zaheer Khan, (2006) 4 SCC 227.
Case law · 2025-06-25
B.3 Varun Tyagi v. Daffodil Software Pvt. Ltd.The Delhi High Court held in 2025 that any term of an employment contract restricting the employee's right to take up employment after termination is void as contrary to Section 27.
In view of the above, it is clear that any terms of the employment contract that imposes a restriction on right of the employee to get employed post-termination of the contract of employment shall be void being contrary to Section 27 of the ICA.
See Varun Tyagi v. Daffodil Software Pvt. Ltd., FAO 167/2025 (Delhi High Court, June 25, 2025).
Can an Indian employer restrict competition during employment?
Yes. A negative covenant that binds an employee to serve the employer exclusively during the employment is not treated as a restraint of trade and does not fall under Section 27, and a court may, in its discretion, enjoin breach of that negative promise under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
The Supreme Court drew the during- versus post-employment line in Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning & Mfg. Co., holding that an in-term exclusive-service covenant is outside Section 27 .
The Court was explicit that timing is what changes the analysis — the objections that defeat a covenant after employment ends do not apply while the contract is still running .
The same distinction reaches beyond employment. In Gujarat Bottling Co. v. Coca Cola Co., the Supreme Court upheld an in-term exclusive-dealing covenant in a commercial franchise, reasoning that a restriction confined to the life of the contract is not a restraint of trade — and Percept confirms the doctrine is not limited to employment contracts.
The procedural mechanism is Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, which lets a court enjoin breach of a negative covenant even though it cannot order the affirmative service to be performed — though that relief is discretionary and conditioned on the plaintiff's own performance of the contract .
An in-term exclusivity or whole-time service covenant is enforceable, but it must be confined to the period the employment or contract is actually running — the moment it purports to operate after the relationship ends, it crosses into Section 27 and is void. Draft the obligation to expire with the contract, and rely on Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act for an injunction during the term.
Sources for this answer
Case law · 1967-01-17
C.1 Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning & Mfg. Co.The Supreme Court held that negative covenants operative during the period of employment, when the employee is bound to serve the employer exclusively, are generally not regarded as restraint of trade and do not fall under Section 27.
Negative covenants operative during the period of the contract of employment when the employee is bound to serve his employer exclusively are generally not regarded as restraint of trade and therefore do not fall under section 27 of the Contract Act.
See Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning & Mfg. Co., AIR 1967 SC 1098.
Case law · 1967-01-17
C.3 Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning & Mfg. Co.The Supreme Court distinguished restrictions that apply after the contract ends from those that operate during the contract, holding the considerations against them are different.
The result of the above discussion is that considerations against restrictive covenants are different in cases where the restriction is to apply during the period after the termination of the contract than those in cases where it is to operate during the period of the contract.
See Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning & Mfg. Co., AIR 1967 SC 1098.
Case law · 1995-08-04
C.4 Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co.The Supreme Court held that a negative stipulation confined to the period the agreement is subsisting cannot be regarded as a restraint of trade attracting the bar of Section 27.
Since the negatice stipulation in paragraph 14 of the 1993 Agreement is confined in its application to the period of subsistence of the agreement and the restriction imposed therein is operative only during the period the 1993 Agreement is subsisting, the said stipulation cannot be held to be in restraint of trade so as to attract the bar of section 27 of the Contract Act.
See Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co., (1995) 5 SCC 545.
Case law · 2006-03-22
C.5 Percept D'Mark (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Zaheer KhanThe Supreme Court confirmed that the restraint-of-trade doctrine is not confined to contracts of employment but applies to all other contracts.
As held by this Court in Gujarat Bottling vs. Coca Cola (supra), this doctrine is not confined only to contracts of employment, but is also applicable to all other contracts.
See Percept D'Mark (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Zaheer Khan, (2006) 4 SCC 227.
Primary law
C.2 Specific Relief Act, 1963, § 42PDFSection 42 lets a court grant an injunction to perform a negative agreement even where it cannot compel specific performance of the coupled affirmative agreement, provided the plaintiff has not failed to perform the contract so far as it is binding on him.
Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (e) of section 41, where a contract comprises an affirmative agreement to do a certain act, coupled with a negative agreement, express or implied, not to do a certain act, the circumstance that the court is unable to compel specific performance of the affirmative agreement shall not preclude it from granting an injunction to perform the negative agreement: Provided that the plaintiff has not failed to perform the contract so far as it is binding on him.
See Specific Relief Act, 1963, § 42.
Are customer and employee non-solicitation clauses enforceable in India?
Sometimes — a targeted non-solicitation clause is more defensible than a non-compete, but the outcome is fact-sensitive. Indian courts have upheld a non-solicitation-of-employees clause as a restriction on the contracting parties rather than on the employees, and have granted only narrow injunctions against soliciting a former employer's customers — but they will not let a confidentiality or non-solicitation theory become a monopoly over the departing worker's clients.
On employee non-solicitation, the Delhi High Court in Wipro Ltd. v. Beckman Coulter International treated a clause barring one company from soliciting the other's staff as a restriction on the companies, not on the employees, so it fell outside Section 27.
Critically, the remedy is a claim against the contracting party, not an order preventing the employees themselves from being hired .
“The remedy lies in the claim for damages and an injunction against solicitation in future.”
The setting matters: Wipro arose between two contracting companies, so it most directly supports a business-to-business non-solicitation clause. An employer's clause aimed at its own departing employee is on weaker ground and is read against the right-to-livelihood limit below.
On customer non-solicitation, the relief Indian courts will grant is narrow. In Desiccant Rotors International v. Bappaditya Sarkar, the Delhi High Court refused to bar a former employee from working for a competitor at all; the only restraint it imposed was an injunction against approaching the plaintiff's own suppliers and customers , and even then it stressed that the employee's right to livelihood prevails over the employer's wish to be free of competition .
The outer limit is set by American Express Bank v. Priya Puri, where the Delhi High Court rejected the idea that an employer can lock up its customer base through a former employee .
A narrowly drawn non-solicitation clause is the more defensible cousin of a non-compete in India, but do not over-read it. An employee non-solicitation clause is enforced against the contracting party as damages or an anti-solicitation injunction, never as a no-hire bar on the workers; and a customer non-solicitation clause cannot be stretched into a de facto non-compete that fences off the former employee's livelihood.
Sources for this answer
Case law · 2006-07-11
D.4 Wipro Ltd. v. Beckman Coulter International S.A.The Delhi High Court characterized a non-solicitation-of-employees clause as a restriction cast on the contracting parties, not on the employees.
It is a restriction cast upon the contracting parties and not on the employees.
See Wipro Ltd. v. Beckman Coulter International S.A., 131 (2006) DLT 681 (Delhi HC).
Case law · 2006-07-11
D.1 Wipro Ltd. v. Beckman Coulter International S.A.The Delhi High Court held that the non-solicitation clause did not amount to a restraint of trade and would not be hit by Section 27 as void.
In my view, therefore, the non-solicitation clause does not amount to a restraint of trade, business or profession and would not be hit by Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 as being void.
See Wipro Ltd. v. Beckman Coulter International S.A., 131 (2006) DLT 681 (Delhi HC).
Case law · 2006-07-11
D.5 Wipro Ltd. v. Beckman Coulter International S.A.The Delhi High Court held that the remedy for breach of a non-solicitation clause lies in a claim for damages and an injunction against future solicitation, not a bar on hiring.
The remedy lies in the claim for damages and an injunction against solicitation in future.
See Wipro Ltd. v. Beckman Coulter International S.A., 131 (2006) DLT 681 (Delhi HC).
Case law · 2009-07-14
D.6 Desiccant Rotors International Pvt. Ltd. v. Bappaditya SarkarThe Delhi High Court held that where the employer's wish to avoid competition clashes with the employee's right to seek employment, the right of livelihood must prevail.
It is this attempt to protect themselves from competition which clashes with the right of the employees to seek employment where so ever they choose and in a clash like this, it is clear that the right of livelihood of the latter must prevail.
See Desiccant Rotors International Pvt. Ltd. v. Bappaditya Sarkar, CS(OS) No. 337/2008 (Delhi HC, 2009).
Case law · 2009-07-14
D.2 Desiccant Rotors International Pvt. Ltd. v. Bappaditya SarkarThe Delhi High Court declined to bar the former employee from competing and limited relief to an injunction restraining him from approaching the plaintiff's suppliers and customers to solicit directly competing business.
The injunction only restrains Defendant No. 1 from approaching the plaintiff‟s suppliers and customers for soliciting business which is in direct competition with the business of the plaintiff.
See Desiccant Rotors International Pvt. Ltd. v. Bappaditya Sarkar, CS(OS) No. 337/2008 (Delhi HC, 2009).
Case law · 2006-05-24
D.3 American Express Bank Ltd. v. Priya PuriThe Delhi High Court held that an employer should not be allowed to create monopolies over its clients on the ground that it has developed exhaustive customer data.
In my opinion no Bank should be allowed to create monopolies on the ground that they have developed exhaustive data of their clients/customers.
See American Express Bank Ltd. v. Priya Puri, (2006) III LLJ 540 (Delhi HC).
Is garden leave enforceable in India?
Only during the notice period, while the employee is still on the rolls. Garden leave inside the notice period works as an in-term exclusive-service covenant, which Section 27 does not reach ; but a garden leave clause that operates after the employee has ceased employment is prima facie in restraint of trade and hit by Section 27 — even though the employer keeps paying — because it stops the former employee from working elsewhere.
In VFS Global Services v. Suprit Roy, the Bombay High Court considered a clause requiring a departed employee to sit out a period after leaving, with pay, and held it to be a post-cessation restraint that Section 27 voids .
The court's reasoning was that paying a former employee to stay idle is still an obstruction of their ability to earn a living elsewhere .
Structure garden leave as part of the notice period — the employee remains employed, on payroll, and bound by in-term duties — rather than as a sit-out that begins after employment ends. A garden-leave obligation that runs after cessation functions as a post-term non-compete and is void under Section 27, and adding a salary does not cure it.
Sources for this answer
Case law · 1967-01-17
E.1 Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning & Mfg. Co.The Supreme Court held that an in-term exclusive-service negative covenant is not a restraint of trade and falls outside Section 27 — the basis on which garden leave inside the notice period, while the employee remains employed, is defensible.
Negative covenants operative during the period of the contract of employment when the employee is bound to serve his employer exclusively are generally not regarded as restraint of trade and therefore do not fall under section 27 of the Contract Act.
See Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning & Mfg. Co., AIR 1967 SC 1098.
Case law · 2007-12-10
E.2 VFS Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Suprit RoyThe Bombay High Court held that a post-cessation garden-leave clause is prima facie in restraint of trade and hit by Section 27.
The Garden Leave Clause is therefore, prima facie in restraint of trade and is hit by Section 27 of the Contract Act.
See VFS Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Suprit Roy, 2008 (2) Bom CR 446 (Bombay HC).
Case law · 2007-12-10
E.3 VFS Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Suprit RoyThe Bombay High Court reasoned that obstructing an employee who has left service from obtaining gainful employment elsewhere is not fair or proper.
To obstruct on employee who has left service from obtaining gainful employment elsewhere is not fair or proper.
See VFS Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Suprit Roy, 2008 (2) Bom CR 446 (Bombay HC).
Are employment bonds and minimum-service clauses enforceable in India?
Yes, when they recover a genuine cost rather than penalize departure. A minimum-service clause backed by liquidated damages is not a restraint of trade under Section 27 — the Supreme Court held in 2025 that such a clause furthers the employment relationship instead of restraining future work — and any recovery is capped at reasonable compensation under Section 74 of the Contract Act.
In Vijaya Bank v. Prashant B. Narnaware, decided in May 2025, the Supreme Court upheld a clause requiring an employee either to serve a minimum term or pay a fixed sum, reasoning that the obligation operated within the employment rather than restricting later employment .
The Court concluded that the bond was neither a restraint of trade nor contrary to public policy .
The clause in Vijaya Bank arose in a public-sector bank and required either a three-year minimum service or payment of a fixed sum; the Court treated that sum as reasonable compensation for the employer's retention interest and the real cost and burden of fresh recruitment, not as a penalty calibrated to deter resignation.
A bond is a damages mechanism, not a penalty, and Section 74 limits what the employer can actually recover to reasonable compensation not exceeding the stipulated sum .
Tie an employment bond to a legitimate, documented interest — recruitment, replacement, or training expense the employer actually incurred — and keep the stipulated sum proportionate and amortized over the service period, so that leaving early is not made illusory. A bond pegged to a real pre-estimated expense recovers reasonable compensation under Section 74; a round-number penalty set only to deter resignation, untethered from any cost, is liable to be cut down or struck as unreasonable. Because Vijaya Bank arose in a public-sector setting, a private employer should be ready to evidence the cost or operational loss its bond recovers.
Sources for this answer
Case law · 2025-05-14
F.1 Vijaya Bank v. Prashant B. NarnawareThe Supreme Court held that the object of the minimum-service covenant was in furtherance of the employment contract and not to restrain future employment, so it was not a Section 27 restraint.
The object of the restrictive covenant was in furtherance of the employment contract and not to restrain future employment.
See Vijaya Bank v. Prashant B. Narnaware, 2025 INSC 691.
Case law · 2025-05-14
F.3 Vijaya Bank v. Prashant B. NarnawareThe Supreme Court concluded that the minimum-service covenant did not amount to a restraint of trade and was not opposed to public policy.
In light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view the restrictive covenant in clause 11(k) of the appointment letter does not amount to restraint of trade nor is it opposed to public policy.
See Vijaya Bank v. Prashant B. Narnaware, 2025 INSC 691.
Primary law
F.2 Indian Contract Act, 1872, § 74PDFSection 74 entitles the non-breaching party to reasonable compensation not exceeding the sum named or penalty stipulated, whether or not actual damage is proved — capping employment-bond recovery.
the party complaining of the breach is entitled, whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby, to receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named or, as the case may be, the penalty stipulated for.
See Indian Contract Act, 1872, § 74.
Is there a sale-of-business or goodwill exception to India's non-compete ban?
Yes, but it is narrow. Exception 1 to Section 27 lets someone who sells the goodwill of a business agree not to compete within reasonable local limits while the buyer carries on a like business, and the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 adds express notwithstanding Section 27 carve-outs for partners — covering both an outgoing partner's restraint and restraints made on dissolution. A purely financial or minority-investor exit, with no goodwill transferred, does not qualify.
Exception 1 is the one statutory escape from the Section 27 ban, and it exists so a buyer can protect the goodwill it pays for .
Parliament added parallel exceptions for partnerships, which underscores how the rule works: a restraint is valid only where the statute expressly says so. The Partnership Act validates a restraint on an outgoing partner — the closest analogue to a departing stakeholder — where the limits are reasonable , and a like restraint among partners on dissolution .
Tie a sale-of-business non-compete to the goodwill actually sold, keep it within reasonable local limits, and place it in the purchase agreement — not the seller's employment contract. A covenant bootstrapped onto continued employment, or imposed on a founder who keeps only a minority financial stake without transferring goodwill, falls outside Exception 1 and is void under Section 27.
Sources for this answer
Primary law
G.1 Indian Contract Act, 1872, § 27 (Exception 1)PDFException 1 to Section 27 permits a seller of business goodwill to agree not to carry on a similar business within reasonable specified local limits while the buyer carries on a like business there.
One who sells the good-will 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 good-will 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.
See Indian Contract Act, 1872, § 27, Exception 1.
Primary law
G.2 Indian Partnership Act, 1932, § 36(2)PDFSection 36(2) of the Partnership Act allows a partner to agree that, on ceasing to be a partner, he will not carry on a similar business within specified limits, and validates that agreement notwithstanding Section 27 if the restrictions are reasonable.
A partner may make an agreement with his partners that on ceasing to be a partner he will not carry on any business similar to that of the firm within a specified period or within specified local limits; and, notwithstanding anything contained in section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), such agreement shall be valid if the restrictions imposed are reasonable.
See Indian Partnership Act, 1932, § 36(2).
Primary law
G.3 Indian Partnership Act, 1932, § 54PDFSection 54 of the Partnership Act allows partners, on or in anticipation of dissolution, to agree not to carry on a similar business within specified limits, and validates the agreement notwithstanding Section 27 if the restrictions are reasonable.
Partners may, upon or in anticipation of the dissolution of the firm, make an agreement that some or all of them will not carry on a business similar to that of the firm within a specified period or within specified local limits; and notwithstanding anything contained in section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), such agreement shall be valid if the restrictions imposed are reasonable.
See Indian Partnership Act, 1932, § 54.
What can an Indian employer protect instead of a non-compete?
Genuine confidential information, targeted non-solicitation, in-term exclusivity, garden leave during notice, and cost-based bonds — applied to employees and to independent contractors alike, because Section 27 reaches non-employment contracts too. A confidentiality clause that protects real trade secrets is enforceable, but it cannot be written so broadly that it bars the former employee from working in their field.
India has no standalone trade-secrets statute, so protection is built from contract and the equitable action for breach of confidence. The Bombay High Court confirmed in VFS Global that a clause protecting genuine commercial or trade secrets is not a restraint of trade .
The boundary is that confidentiality cannot be used as a back-door non-compete. American Express Bank v. Priya Puri held that an employee's freedom to move for a better position is a vital right that an employer cannot curtail by labelling ordinary customer information confidential .
Because Section 27 applies to all contracts, not just employment, an employer cannot escape the ban by engaging a worker as a consultant or independent contractor — the same rules govern, as Section 27's reach in Percept (an agency contract) and Gujarat Bottling (a franchise) confirms . These freedoms are reinforced by the constitutional right to practise any profession or carry on any trade or business .
Build the protection program around what Indian law actually enforces: a confidentiality clause tied to identifiable trade secrets, a narrow non-solicitation clause, in-term exclusivity, garden leave inside the notice period, and a cost-based bond — used consistently for employees and contractors. Do not define confidential information so broadly that it sweeps in the worker's general skill and experience, which would make the clause a de facto non-compete and void under Section 27.
Sources for this answer
Case law · 2007-12-10
H.1 VFS Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Suprit RoyThe Bombay High Court held that a clause prohibiting an employee from disclosing commercial or trade secrets is not in restraint of trade and remains enforceable.
A clause prohibiting an employee from disclosing commercial or trade secrets is not in restraint of trade.
See VFS Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Suprit Roy, 2008 (2) Bom CR 446 (Bombay HC).
Case law · 2006-05-24
H.2 American Express Bank Ltd. v. Priya PuriThe Delhi High Court held that an employee's freedom to change employment to improve service conditions is a vital right that cannot be curtailed on the ground that the employee holds the employer's customer data ascertainable by independent canvass.
Freedom of changing employment for improving service conditions is a vital and important right of an employee which cannot be restricted or curtailed on the ground that the employee has employer's data and confidential information of customers which is capable of ascertainment on behalf of defendant or any one else, by an independent canvass at a small expense and in a very limited period of time.
See American Express Bank Ltd. v. Priya Puri, (2006) III LLJ 540 (Delhi HC).
Case law · 2006-03-22
H.3 Percept D'Mark (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Zaheer KhanThe Supreme Court confirmed that the restraint-of-trade doctrine under Section 27 is not confined to employment contracts but applies to all contracts, so the rule cannot be evaded by engaging a worker as a contractor.
As held by this Court in Gujarat Bottling vs. Coca Cola (supra), this doctrine is not confined only to contracts of employment, but is also applicable to all other contracts.
See Percept D'Mark (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Zaheer Khan, (2006) 4 SCC 227.
Primary law
H.4 Constitution of India, art. 19(1)(g)PDFArticle 19(1)(g) guarantees all citizens the right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business — the constitutional backdrop to Section 27's protection of the freedom to work.
All citizens shall have the right— (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
See Constitution of India, art. 19(1)(g).