A Non-Compete and Non-Solicitation Agreement restricts an individual from joining a competitor, starting a competing business, or poaching clients and colleagues for a set period after leaving an organisation. It is typically signed at the start of employment or upon exit, and it defines the scope of the restraint, its duration, and the geography it covers.
This agreement is almost always drafted by the employer and is designed to protect the company's business interests. An employee or departing founder should review it closely because post-employment restraints are generally viewed as a restraint of trade under Indian law, and their enforceability is limited.
Who it usually favours: The standard form heavily favours the employer; the employee or departing founder should push back on the breadth and duration of the restrictions.
What each one settles in a non-compete and non-solicitation agreement, and the wording that shifts the risk.
Why it matters. This clause defines exactly what work or business the individual is barred from doing. It determines whether the person can earn a living in their profession after leaving.
Watch for. Broad wording like 'any business that competes with the company' may be unreasonably wide. A tightly defined list of specific competing products or services is worth negotiating.
Why it matters. This sets the period for which the restrictions apply after the employment ends. It directly impacts the individual's ability to seek new work.
Watch for. A duration that extends well beyond what is needed to protect the employer's legitimate business interests may be struck down. Periods that run for several years are a significant red flag.
Why it matters. This clause limits where the individual cannot compete or solicit. It defines the territorial reach of the restraint.
Watch for. A territory wider than the area where the individual actually worked or had influence, such as a pan-India or global restriction for a local role, is usually unreasonable.
Why it matters. This prevents the departing individual from hiring or poaching former colleagues. It protects the employer's team stability.
Watch for. A blanket ban on hiring any employee, regardless of whether the individual had a working relationship with them, may be excessive. A restriction limited to key personnel or direct reports is more balanced.
Why it matters. This bars the individual from taking away the employer's customers or clients. It safeguards the company's revenue and goodwill.
Watch for. The clause should ideally be limited to clients with whom the individual had direct dealings. A restriction covering all clients of the company, including those the person never interacted with, is worth challenging.
Why it matters. For a restraint to be valid, it must be part of a contract of employment and supported by consideration. A standalone agreement signed after employment has begun may lack fresh consideration.
Watch for. If the agreement is presented after the job offer is accepted without a new benefit like a promotion or bonus, its enforceability may be weak. The timing of signing is worth checking.
Why it matters. This clause states that if one part of the agreement is found invalid, the rest remains in force. It allows a court to modify the restraint rather than void the whole agreement.
Watch for. An employer-friendly severability clause may allow a court to rewrite an overly broad restriction, which reduces the individual's ability to have the entire restraint set aside.
What the review cannot check for this type: State Shops and Establishments Acts are not yet indexed, so working-hours, leave and termination-notice checks that derive from them are not covered.
Post-employment non-compete clauses are generally considered a restraint of trade and are void under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Courts have consistently held that while an employer can restrict competition during the employment period, they cannot stop a person from earning a livelihood after the employment ends. Non-solicitation clauses, however, may be upheld if they are reasonable and protect legitimate business interests.
A non-compete clause prevents a departing individual from joining a competitor or starting a similar business. A non-solicitation clause is narrower and only restricts the individual from actively poaching the former employer's clients or employees. Indian law is more likely to enforce a reasonably drafted non-solicitation clause than a blanket non-compete.
The advocate uploads the contract file and the tool detects the document type, the parties, and the governing law clause. It then checks each clause against the Indian Contract Act and the Specific Relief Act, flagging points for an advocate to confirm in hedged language. The output includes a balance assessment showing which party the document favours, a summary of points ranked by seriousness, and a 'what to ask for' section, all as a starting point for the advocate's own review.
Free trial · Assistive review, not legal advice — every finding is a starting point for an advocate.