Skip to main content

Employer Can’t Restrain Trade In Guise Of Confidentiality Clause

The Delhi High Court through Justice Vibhu Bakhru struck down a ‘non compete‘ clause in M/s Stellar Information Technology Private Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Ors and decided in favour of the ex-employees who were restrained from carrying on their own business. The plaintiff is a private company engaged in the business of providing data recovery, data migration and data erasure solutions to its clients in India and abroad. They claimed that three of their former employees were stealing their confidential data, information, trade secrets and know how, and are now using the same for securing business from the plaintiff’s clients to run their own company called Techchef and contended that it was in breach of the “Confidentiality and Invention Assignment Agreement” and “Employee Confidentiality Agreement” entered into by the ex-employees with the plaintiff. The defendants were restricted only from engaging in competing business and that too for a limited time, which was held to be reasonable, by the plaintiff company. The court observed that the only grievance of the plaintiff appeared to be that the defendants approached the plaintiff’s customers. Clarifying the issue, the Delhi High Court opined that the defendants could not be reasonably restrained from approaching the customers since the identity of the customers is known on public domain (available on the plaintiff company’s website). The defendants also could not be prevented from using the experience and knowledge, which is gained by them during the course of employment with the plaintiff. The software used by the plaintiff company was licensed software and not proprietary software. The court reached the conclusion that the plaintiff’s case is essentially not one of infringement of copyright but one for enforcement of a non-compete clause. Since the names of the customers seeking data recovery services being well known and in public domain was undisputed, therefore, the defendants cannot be restrained from approaching the customers only on the allegation that the defendants were aware of the names of the plaintiff’s customers. The court said that this contention that defendants could not be permitted to carry on any competing business is also “bereft of any merit as by expanding the width of the expression ‘confidential information’ to include information which is in public domain, the plaintiff was not seeking protection of proprietary or confidential information, but essentially seeking a restraint on trade, which is be void by virtue of Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872”. As regard the contention regarding the restriction on carrying on competing business, since a covenant in restraint of trade, whether partial or not is void by virtue of Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The court said: “The contention that the restriction to carry on competing business is for a limited time and is therefore, reasonable and consequently, enforceable cannot be accepted. Once it is held that in the guise of a confidentiality clause, the plaintiff is attempting to enforce a covenant in restraint of trade, the same must be held to be void.” On the basis of conclusions drawn, the court dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff company.

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/guise-confidentiality-clause-employer-cant-restrain-trade-delhi-hc/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more