The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with a ₹14.49 crore arbitral award in favour of former Indian cricket captain Sourav Ganguly, declining an appeal by Percept Talent Management after the award had already survived challenges before a Calcutta High Court Single Judge and Division Bench.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a Special Leave Petition filed by Percept Talent Management Limited against a Calcutta High Court judgment upholding an arbitral award of ₹14,49,91,000 in favour of former Indian cricket captain Sourav Ganguly.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana expressed its disinclination to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the arbitral tribunal, the High Court’s Single Judge and its Division Bench.
The dispute concerned a Player Representation Agreement executed in 2003 under which Percept was appointed as the exclusive manager of Ganguly’s commercial rights and personality-related engagements.
Percept challenged exclusion of KKR earnings
Senior Advocate Nakul Dewan, appearing for Percept, argued that the arbitral tribunal had wrongly kept Ganguly’s earnings from the Kolkata Knight Riders outside the revenue-sharing arrangement contained in the agreement.
It was submitted that the contractual clause governing promotional services was wide enough to cover services linked with cricket matches. Percept contended that the tribunal had failed to properly examine the relevant contractual provisions and evidence and had effectively altered the bargain between the parties.
The company also argued that courts exercising jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could not reinterpret the agreement and that the central contractual issue had not received adequate consideration.
Supreme Court sees no reason to disturb concurrent findings
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi questioned the interpretation advanced by Percept. The Bench examined the distinction between Ganguly’s participation as a cricketer for KKR and any separate promotional activity arising from his association with the franchise.
Percept maintained that the agreement contemplated circumstances in which a sponsor might separately engage Ganguly while also sponsoring the franchise. It referred to Ganguly’s evidence to argue that his commercial engagements had been affected when he was no longer part of the Indian team.
The Supreme Court, however, was not persuaded to reopen the factual and contractual findings accepted at every previous stage. Senior Advocate Gourab Banerji appeared for Ganguly.
Dispute arose from 2003 representation agreement
Ganguly and Percept entered into the Player Representation Agreement on October 22, 2003. The contract appointed the company as the sole and exclusive manager of his commercial rights and personality exploitation. It also provided for sharing revenue and routing earnings through an escrow account.
One contractual provision permitted termination if Ganguly remained outside the Indian cricket team for six continuous months. After he lost his place in the team in February 2006, the stipulated period was completed on August 1, 2006.
Percept did not terminate the agreement at that stage. It continued to represent Ganguly even after he returned to the Indian team on November 30, 2006, and issued its termination notice only on November 21, 2007.
The courts below found that the company’s conduct during this period was inconsistent with an intention to end the agreement. Its termination right was therefore treated as having been waived and incapable of being revived after Ganguly’s return to the team.
Tribunal awarded ₹14.49 crore with interest
The dispute was referred to arbitration after Ganguly alleged non-payment of minimum guarantees and unauthorised withdrawals from the escrow account. The arbitral tribunal accepted his claims and awarded him ₹14,49,91,000 with interest at 12 per cent, besides ₹50 lakh as costs.
A Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court rejected Percept’s application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking to set aside the award.
Percept then invoked Section 37 before a Division Bench, asserting that the tribunal had ignored the express terms of the contract and that its right to terminate remained available once the non-selection condition was triggered.
The Division Bench rejected the appeal. It held that the termination right had not been exercised within a reasonable period and stood waived because Percept continued to represent Ganguly and operate the contractual arrangement for several months.
On the KKR issue, the High Court accepted the tribunal’s conclusion that the payments were for Ganguly playing cricket for the franchise rather than for his individual endorsements. Activities undertaken for the franchise were consequently held to fall outside his separate commercial representation agreement with Percept.
With the Supreme Court refusing to interfere, the arbitral award and the High Court rulings sustaining it remain undisturbed.
Case Title: Percept Talent Management Limited v. Sourav Chandidas Ganguly
Case Number: SLP (C) No. 24927 of 2026
Coram: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
Hearing Date: September 28, 2026