SC refuses Percept appeal, upholds Rs 14 crore award in Sourav Ganguly dispute

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

The court was hearing Percept’s plea against the High Court order, which had dismissed the company’s challenge to the arbitral award.

As per media reports, the dispute stems from a Player Representation Agreement (PRA) signed between Percept and Ganguly on October 22, 2003. Under the agreement, Percept was appointed as Ganguly’s sole and exclusive manager for his commercial rights and personality exploitation. The contract provided for revenue sharing and required earnings from such arrangements to be routed through an escrow account.

The agreement also allowed termination if Ganguly remained out of the Indian team for six continuous months. After he lost his place in February 2006, the condition was met on August 1 that year. However, Percept continued to represent Ganguly after his return to the team on November 30, 2006, and issued a termination notice only on November 21, 2007.

The matter subsequently went to arbitration, where Ganguly raised claims relating to non-payment of minimum guarantees and alleged unauthorised withdrawals from the escrow account. The arbitral tribunal accepted his claims and awarded ₹14,49,91,000 with 12% interest, along with ₹50 lakh in costs.

The Calcutta High Court subsequently upheld the award, holding that Percept had lost its right to terminate the agreement after continuing to represent Ganguly despite the contractual event it relied on to exercise that right.

Media networks have reported that the High Court also upheld the finding that Ganguly’s earnings from the Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR) fell outside the revenue-sharing arrangement under the agreement.

Appearing for Percept, Senior Advocate Nakul Dewan argued that the tribunal had incorrectly excluded Ganguly’s KKR earnings from the revenue-sharing arrangement. He submitted that the agreement contained an all-encompassing provision covering promotional services, including those connected with cricket matches.

Dewan also argued that courts exercising jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act could not reinterpret the contract, and contended that the relevant contractual provisions and evidence had not been properly considered.

The bench also distinguished between Ganguly’s participation as a player and promotional activities associated with his association with KKR.