Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain an appeal filed by Percept Talent Management challenging a Calcutta High Court judgment which upheld a ₹14.49 crore arbitral award in favour of former Indian cricket captain Sourav Ganguly.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with Percept Talent Management Ltd.'s plea against the Calcutta High Court order which dismissed its appeal and upheld the arbitral award.

The dispute arose from a 2003 Player Representation Agreement between Percept and Ganguly. 

The Calcutta High Court had upheld the arbitral award after rejecting Percept's challenge. It had held that Percept had lost its right to terminate the representation agreement after continuing to represent Ganguly despite the contractual event which it claimed triggered its termination right.

The High Court had also upheld the finding that Ganguly's earnings from KKR fell outside the revenue-sharing arrangement with Percept.

Senior Advocate Nakul Dewan, appearing for Percept, argued that the arbitral tribunal had wrongly excluded earnings received by Ganguly from the Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR) from the revenue-sharing arrangement under the agreement.

Dewan submitted that the agreement contained an all-encompassing clause covering promotional services, including services connected with cricket matches. He argued that the arbitral award had not properly considered the relevant contractual provisions or evidence and had effectively rewritten the parties' bargain.

Dewan also argued that the courts exercising jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act could not reinterpret the contract, and submitted that the issue had not been properly considered by the tribunal or the courts below.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned Percept's interpretation of the agreement. The Court also distinguished between Ganguly's participation as a player and promotional activities associated with his association with KKR.

Dewan submitted that the agreement contemplated situations where a sponsor could separately engage Ganguly while also sponsoring KKR. Referring to Ganguly's evidence, he submitted that certain sponsors had dropped him when he was no longer part of the Indian team.

The Supreme Court, after hearing the submissions, expressed disinclination to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Artibral Tribunal, the High Court Single Bench and the Division Bench.

Senior Advocate Gourab Banerji appeared for Ganguly.

Background

Ganguly entered into the PRA with the petitioner-company on October 22, 2003, appointing it as the sole and exclusive manager of his commercial rights and personality exploitation.

The agreement included a revenue-sharing mechanism and required earnings from such arrangements to be routed through an escrow account. The contract allowed termination if he remained out of the Indian team for 6 continuous months. After Ganguly lost his place in February 2006, that condition was met on August 1, 2006.

The petitioner-Company, however, did not act on it at the time. It continued to represent him even after he returned to the team on November 30, 2006, and issued a termination notice only on November 21, 2007. The dispute later went to arbitration, where Ganguly alleged that minimum guarantees had not been paid and that there were unauthorized withdrawals from the escrow account. The Arbitral Tribunal accepted his claims and awarded Rs. 14,49,91,000 with 12% interest, along with Rs. 50 lakhs in costs.

A Single Judge subsequently refused to set aside the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner challenged the order in appeal under Section 37, arguing that the Tribunal had ignored the express terms of the agreement. It maintained that once the non-selection clause was triggered, it had an unconditional right to terminate and that this right continued as long as the condition existed. It also contended that the Single Judge had effectively rewritten the contract.

Ganguly, in response, pointed to the petitioner's conduct after August 1, 2006. Over 16 months, the company continued to act as his agent, entered into arrangements on his behalf, and operated the escrow mechanism. On that basis, he argued that the right to terminate had been waived and could not be exercised later. He also submitted that the phrase “at any time” in the agreement could not be read to allow an indefinite delay. 

The Division Bench agreed that the right to terminate had not been exercised within a reasonable time and that petitioner's conduct was inconsistent with an intention to end the agreement. It held that the right stood waived and could not be invoked after Ganguly had already been re-selected to the team.

On the issue of the KKR contract, the court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's conclusion that the payments were for playing cricket and not for individual endorsements. Activities undertaken under that arrangement were on behalf of the franchise, not personal commercial engagements, and therefore fell outside the scope of the agreement, it said. 

Emphasising the limited scope of judicial interference, the Bench observed: “We are also of the opinion that when the learned Arbitral Tribunal, in its wisdom, accepted one plausible view against the other, no interference under the jurisdiction of Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was at all warranted. On this score also we are not in a position to hold at any stretch of imagination, that the learned Single Judge failed to exercise its jurisdiction under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”

Finding no error in the Single Judge's approach, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the petitioner came to the Supreme Court. 

Case Title – Precept Talent Management Limited v. Sourav Chandidas Ganguly

Case No. - SLP(C) No. 24927/ 2026

Tags: