📄 Article
✓ Link checked
India
Free
Advanced
Why we picked it
Written by one of India's top corporate law firms, this is the authoritative read on what your co-founder's current employer can actually enforce while they are still on the payroll. It confirms that a non-compete or exclusivity clause operative during employment is valid in India (unlike a post-exit non-compete, which Section 27 of the Contract Act voids), which is exactly why you check their contract before they touch your codebase, not after they quit.
From
India Corporate Law (Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas)
by Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas
12 min read
- Dual employment is permissible in India only when the contract allows it or the employer consents, so a co-founder's existing employment agreement may bar the side work outright
- Non-compete and exclusivity clauses that operate during the term of employment are enforceable, and firms draft them to cover consultancy and advisory arrangements, not just formal jobs
- Employers can and do clarify how IP created for another entity is treated, especially where office time or resources touch the side project, making the employer's IP claim a live risk
Open
corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com →
📄 Article
✓ Link checked
India
Free
Intermediate
Why we picked it
Founders conflate two very different things: non-competes while employed (usually enforceable) versus after you quit (usually void under Section 27 of the Contract Act). This piece draws that line cleanly with recent Indian case law (Navigators Logistics, Neosky India 2025), so you know what your employer can actually stop you from doing once you leave to go full-time.
From
Anirudh Associates
by Anirudh Associates
10 min read
- Section 27 makes most post-resignation non-competes void, so a clause barring you from a competing startup after you quit generally can't be enforced.
- Restraints that operate while you are still employed are a different matter and are generally upheld, which is exactly the risk window when you moonlight.
- What does survive termination is well-drafted confidentiality and narrow non-solicitation, so protect yourself by not touching your employer's data or clients.
Open
anirudhassociates.com →
📄 Article
✓ Link checked
Free
Intermediate
Why we picked it
This is the canonical explainer on the exact mechanism that closes your ownership gap: founders assign pre-incorporation IP to the new company through the stock purchase agreement, while a CIIAA captures everything created afterward. It shows why code, designs, and prototypes built before the company existed stay personally owned until you explicitly assign them, which is a classic diligence killer.
From
Stripe Atlas
by Stripe Atlas
20 min read
- Two documents split the job: the common stock purchase agreement assigns IP you created before incorporation, and the CIIAA covers IP created after.
- Without a signed assignment, the company does not own founder-created IP even though the founder is running it, which surfaces as a red flag in funding or acquisition diligence.
- Every founder should sign an IP assignment at incorporation and be able to easily show they did it, so the chain of title is unbroken.
Open
stripe.com →