Legal Remedies Against Solicitation of Clients by Former Employees

Must Read

The Right to Information and its Working of 15 years

On 12th October 2020, RTI finished fifteen years since its commencement. The question remains whether the legislation stands up to...

An Insight into Custodial Death in India

“The occurrence of Custodial deaths in the world’s greatest democracy has raised the eyebrows of every citizen and shaken...

Implications in Travel Insurance in Light of the COVID-19 Crisis

As the world, today is crippled by this once in a century pandemic and as of date more than...

Second-Round Effects of Rent Control Laws: The Argentine Case

Introduction In colonial India, a city had an issue with its cobra population, which was a problem clearly in need...

Why Are the Big Techs of Silicon Valley Accused of Anti-Competitive Behaviours?

The big tech giants of the Silicon Valley are facing major challenges with relation to their monopolistic powers after...

KSK announces Sanjay Kumar as a Partner for Pharma & Life Sciences Practice

New Partner for KSK's Pharma & Life Sciences Practice King Stubb & Kasiva recently announced that Mr Sanjay Kumar has...
Adv. Anant Sharma
Mr. Anant Sharma, Co-Founder of My Lawyers Advice

Follow us

Solicitation of Clients and procuring work by former employees has been a huge problem for many Corporations not only in India but across the globe. The same causes irreparable damages, injuries, and losses both monetary and non-monetary to the Corporations. The act of soliciting work by poaching Clients is both illegal and unlawful and has to be dealt with stern legal action against the erring former employee. The most potent way to reduce this threat is to execute a Non-Solicitation Agreement with all the employees, at the time of their appointment and induction.

A Non-Solicitation Agreement stops a former employee or an employee from dealing with the Corporation’s clients and customers and soliciting work from them, against the interests of the Corporation. Employee agrees to not solicit clients or customers for their benefit during the tenure of their employment or anytime thereafter. 

Further, Non-Solicitation commitments have to be enforced carefully since certain clauses cannot be considered as restraint of business, profession or trade and cannot be subject to Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 as held in Wipro Ltd. vs Beckman International (2006(3) ARBLR 118 Delhi).

Remedies available under the Civil Laws

Solicitation contracts are private in nature, the contract should itself include clauses in case there is a breach, in liquidated penalty or damage under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 and in the absence of such clauses, parties can turn to civil Courts or arbitration for an injunction and damages for breach under Section 73 of the Indian  Contract Act of 1872.

In the case of Desiccant Rotors International Pvt. Ltd v Bappaditya Sarkar & Anr. (CS(OS) No.337 of 2008), the Court upheld an injunction against the manager restricting him/her from soliciting customers of Desiccant and its suppliers. Further, in the case of Embee Software Pvt. Ltd. v. Samir Kumar Shaw (Original Side, GA No.2171 of 2012), the Court held that acts of solicitation done by former employees to tempt the customers of the former employer into ending their existing contract and signing a contract with the former employee, or stopping others from signing contracts with the former employer cannot be acceptable. 

Provisions under Civil Law to Enforce Non-Solicitation Agreements

  • Serving legal notice to the employee. 
  • Enforcing undertakings or cheque encashment based on terms of the agreement. 
  • Filing civil suit for injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or damages as well as specific performance of a contract. 
  • Initiating suit for declaration that acts of the employee are a tortious intrusion in the business of employer and injunction thereto.

Remedies available under the Criminal Laws

If the former employee solicits customers or employees by using the stolen data that belonged to the former employee, then it would be violating both Section 378 and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for theft since data is considered a movable property as decided in the case of R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration, (AIR 1962 SC 1821).  Here, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the term “property” cannot be just movable property but also corporeal property. In such a case, a criminal complaint can be filed and the violator shall face a punishment of imprisonment of either description for a term up to three years, or with fine, or with both. If the former employee uses information that he/she was trusted with, for purpose of solicitation, Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860, is a legal remedy, that can be used for deterrence, given that the punishment is imprisonment which may extend to seven years along with paying of fine.

Section 2 (o) of the Copyright Act of 1957 protects any database, which comes under the purview of the definition of the term literary work as seen in Burlington Home Shopping Private Limited v. Rajnish Chibber (61 (1995) DLT 6), where the Court prevented an ex-employee from using the company database for the client list. The employer, in this case, can take action under Section 63 of Copyright Act of 1957, which has a punishment of six months imprisonment that can extend up to three years and also fine can be levied of fifty thousand rupees which can extend up to 3 lacs.

Pre-Conditions under the Non-Solicitation Agreement

For Non-Solicitation Agreements to be considered legal, it has to be ensured that such agreement does not outright prohibit lateral hiring of people who are already experts in the required fields. The agreement must allow for lateral hiring by competitors.

Such agreements may include the following:

  • the former employee be required to ask for permission from a former and current employee,
  • a notice period required if still underemployment,
  • a certain amount of compensation to be given to the former employer for loss of talent,
  • conditions concerning the execution of non-disclosure agreements,
  • non-compete clauses and adherence thereto; etc.

No bar should be placed on employment opportunities for the employee.

In conclusion, discussions regarding  Section 27 of the Contract Act of 1872 has clearly pointed to the fact that that solicitation restraints can be enforced on both an employee and a former employee since these restrictions do not restrict a person’s ability to look for another job or partake in any kind of business, it merely restricts the solicitation of clients and customers. Failure to adhere to the Non-Solicitation Agreements can attract penalties under both civil and criminal law and the former employers are well within their rights to exercise such legal action.

This Article is written by Adv. Anant Sharma, Co-Founder My Lawyers Advice and Parinay Gupta, 5th Year Law Student, Amity Law School, Delhi. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -