A new law prohibits high-tech companies, but only those companies in Hawaii, from requiring their employees to enter into “non-competitive” and “non-favourable” agreements as a precondition for employment. The new law, Law 158, came into force on July 1, 2015.  Non-competition prohibitions are enforced in appropriate circumstances in Massachusetts.  Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act has a general blockage of any trade-limiting agreement.  On this basis, it would appear that all non-competition clauses in India are null and void. However, the Indian Supreme Court has clarified that certain non-competition clauses may be in the interests of trade and commerce, and such clauses are not prohibited by Section 27 of the Contract Act and are therefore valid in India.  In particular, only clauses supported by a clear objective, considered beneficial for trade and trade, survive this test. For example, a co-founder of a start-up who has signed a non-compete clause may be, but if a junior software developer or call center employee signs a non-compete clause with the employer, this may not apply. If the employer asks for the termination of the competition contract during the non-competition period, the People`s Court supports this petition. When the employee asks the employer to pay an additional three months` compensation, the People`s Court supports this claim when it asks the employer to pay an additional three months` compensation. Once the parties have agreed on the non-competition obligation and compensation, the employer has the right to ask the worker to comply with non-competitive obligations at the expiry of the employment contract, and the People`s Court supports that claim. The worker has the right to ask the employer for the compensation agreed upon after the non-competitive obligations have been fulfilled, and the People`s Court supports this claim.
On the basis of the following analysis and recent judgments by the Indian courts, it is highly likely that Mr. Amit Kumar could not be prevented from continuing his work with Mobile India`s competitor or being sued for contractual damages, since the non-competition clause contained in the employment contract with Mobile India may be considered very broad in his case of atimism and deemed inappropriate by the Indian courts. While I agree with the common view of my friends Ld, I propose to read a judgment of the Delhi Supreme Court in Desiccant Rotors International .vs Bappaditya Sarkar -Anr decided on July 14, 2009 that an earlier judgment was also taken into account in order to know the effects of the competition/confidentiality clause in employment contracts.