New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea challenging a Calcutta High Court order that had upheld an arbitral award of Rs. 14.49 crore, along with 12 per cent annual interest and Rs. 50 lakh in costs, in favour of former Indian cricketer Sourav Ganguly, in a dispute over his Player Representation Agreement (PRA).
A Bench of Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Percept Talent Management Ltd and Percept D’Mark (India) Pvt Ltd against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court.
In a judgment passed on April 16, 2026, the High Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the Percept entities under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and refused to interfere with the arbitral award granting Ganguly Rs 14.49 crore, along with interest at 12 per cent per annum from November 21, 2007 till the date of the award and further interest at the same rate thereafter till realisation.
The arbitral tribunal had also awarded Rs 50 lakh towards costs.
The dispute arose from a Player Representation Agreement entered into by Ganguly with Percept D’Mark in October 2003, under which the company was appointed as his sole and exclusive manager and agent.
The dispute primarily concerned Percept’s termination of the agreement in November 2007, after Ganguly had been out of the Indian team for more than six months in 2006 but had subsequently been re-selected.
The Calcutta High Court observed that the event which allegedly entitled Percept to terminate the agreement had occurred in August 2006, while Ganguly was re-selected as a regular Indian player in November 2006.
However, the agreement was purportedly terminated only in November 2007.
It had held that there was no document or communication during the relevant period showing that Percept had contemplated termination of the agreement and observed that the termination came 16 months after the event, giving rise to the alleged right of termination and 12 months after Ganguly’s re-selection.
The High Court observed that the agreement had been terminated after the event, giving rise to the alleged right of termination had “long surpassed and no longer existed”, adding that the words “forthwith” and “at any time” could not be stretched indefinitely and the right ought to have been exercised within a reasonable proximity of time.
It also recorded that no document or communication from Percept expressing its desire to terminate the agreement immediately after the occurrence of the relevant event had been shown.
Subsequently, a Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that the Single Judge had neither exceeded nor failed to exercise jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and dismissed Percept’s appeal without any order as to costs.
(IANS)
