New Delhi, September 28, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea challenging a Calcutta High Court order that 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 cricket captain Sourav Ganguly in a dispute over his Player Representation Agreement (PRA).
A Bench comprising 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 Calcutta High Court judgment.
In its April 16, 2026, judgment, the Calcutta High Court had dismissed an appeal filed by the Percept entities under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and declined to interfere with the arbitral award in Ganguly’s favour.
The award granted Ganguly Rs 14.49 crore, along with interest at 12 per cent per annum from November 21, 2007, until the date of the award, and further interest at the same rate until realisation. The arbitral tribunal had also awarded Rs 50 lakh towards costs.
The dispute arose from a Player Representation Agreement signed by Ganguly with Percept D’Mark in October 2003, under which the company was appointed as his sole and exclusive manager and agent.
The disagreement 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 was subsequently reselected.
The Calcutta High Court observed that the event allegedly entitling Percept to terminate the agreement had occurred in August 2006, while Ganguly was reselected as a regular Indian player in November that year. However, the agreement was terminated only in November 2007.
The High Court noted that no document or communication had been produced to show that Percept had contemplated terminating the agreement during the relevant period. It observed that the termination came 16 months after the event that allegedly gave rise to the right to terminate and 12 months after Ganguly’s reselection.
The court held that the agreement had been terminated after the event giving rise to the alleged right had “long surpassed and no longer existed”. It observed that the terms “forthwith” and “at any time” could not be interpreted indefinitely and that the right to terminate should have been exercised within a reasonable period.
The High Court also noted that Percept had not produced any communication indicating an intention to terminate the agreement immediately after the relevant event.
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, 1996. The Division Bench dismissed Percept’s appeal without any order as to costs.
FOLLOW NOW
