Calcutta High Court: The present petition was filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) by the Petitioner- Percept Talent Management Ltd. (‘Percept’) challenging an award dated 9-12-2018, read with the supplementary award dated 8-03-2019 (collectively referred to as “the award”) which had granted former cricketer Sourav Ganguly Rs 14.49 crore with interest and costs. A Single Judge Bench of Ravi Krishan Kapur, J., dismissed the challenge, holding that an arbitral award could not be interfered unless it was perverse or had been passed in violation of grounds enumerated under section 34 of the Act. The Court emphasised that there could be no re-appreciation of the findings by the Arbitral Tribunal (‘Tribunal’), nor did the Court substitute its own view or re-interpret the entire documentary evidence.
Background:
Sourav Ganguly, a cricketer of international repute, entered into a Player Representation Agreement (‘PRA’) on 22-10-2003 with Percept’s subsidiary (Petitioner 2) which was later assigned to Percept Talent Management Ltd. The agreement appointed Percept as his sole and exclusive manager. Following his brief non-selection from the Indian Cricket Team between February and November 2006, Percept terminated the PRA on 21-11-2007. The dispute was referred to arbitration, where Sourav Ganguly alleged the termination was unwarranted and contrary to the terms of the PRA. He claimed that he was entitled to the balance of the minimum guaranteed amount which was assured under the PRA and further alleged that the revenue received from different contracts had not been deposited in the escrow account as contemplated by the PRA.
The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs 14.49 crore with additional interest thereon at 12 per cent per annum from 21-11-2007 till the date of passing of the award with further interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of passing of the award till realisation with additional costs of Rs 50 lakh. The Tribunal also refused the counter claim made by Percept that they were entitled to the benefit of the Kolkata Knight Riders (‘KKR’) contract.
Percept argued that it retained an unconditional right to terminate the PRA “at any time” after Sourav Ganguly’s non selection in 2006. It also contended that Sourav Ganguly’s KKR Contract (i.e. Indian Premier League Playing Contract) fell within the PRA’s revenue-sharing clause, and challenged the tribunal’s rejection of its reliance on audit certificates prepared by its auditors, Patkar & Pendese, which allegedly confirmed deductions. It further claimed that failure to accept the auditor’s certification violated contractual terms and constituted an expected matter. Additionally, the non-liability of Percept’s subsidiary after assignment was contented.
Contrarily, Sourav Ganguly contended that the Tribunal’s findings were reasoned and the interpretation of the terms of the PRA was exclusive domain of the Tribunal, hence no grounds under Section 34 of the Act were made out.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that in deciding an application under section 34 of the Act, the Court did not act as an Appellate Court nor re-appreciate evidence findings rendered by the Tribunal since there was a limited and circumscribed scope of interference only on the grounds enumerated under section 34 of the Act. The Court further observed that an award based on little evidence or on evidence which did not measure up in quality to a trained legal mind would not be held to be invalid on this score, because a possible view by an Arbitrator on facts had necessarily to pass muster, as the Arbitrator was the ultimate master of the quantity and quality of evidence to be relied upon when he delivered his arbitral award
The Court highlighted that the construction of the contract terms was exclusively for the Arbitral Tribunal as the award was based on detailed consideration of the PRA, correspondence, and evidence, including financial records, there was nothing perverse in the Tribunal’s view. The Court noted that the award discussed the nature of obligations under the PRA, the impugned termination letter, and the lack of prior protest and also considered the parties’ conduct. Though petitioners alleged non-performance, no contemporaneous proof was furnished. The Court further observed that it fell within the Tribunal’s domain, and since its approach was neither arbitrary nor capricious, it was the final authority on facts.
The Court pointed out that as a general principle, if there were two plausible interpretations of the terms and conditions of the contract, then no fault could be found if the Tribunal proceeded to accept one interpretation as against the other, and the reasoning of the Arbitral Tribunal in this regard was within the permissible bounds of arbitral discretion under section 34 of the Act. The Court observed that in the facts and circumstances, the interpretation of the relevant clauses of the PRA vis-a-vis the KKR contract by the Tribunal were both possible and plausible.
The Court emphasised that a Court should not interfere with the Tribunal’s decision unless it was perverse or arbitrary, as no part of the award violated justice, morality, or the fundamental policy of Indian law. The Court observed that an auditor’s certificate, without examining the author or allowing cross-examination, was not proof, as assessment of evidence lies with the Tribunal. The Court further noted that the Tribunal found that no evidence was at all adduced in respect of the auditor’s certificate nor did the maker of the documents depose.
The Court dismissed the Percept’s petition on termination of Player Representation Agreement, IPC revenue share, audit certificates, and assignment of liabilities, concluding that there were no grounds under Section 34 of the Act which justified any interference with the impugned award.
[Percept Talent Management Ltd. v. Sourav Chandidas Ganguly, AP-COM/167/2024, decided on 22-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Surojit Nath Mitra, Senior Advocate, Rajarshi Dutta, Advocate, Sarbajit Mukherjee, Advocate, Ranajit Kr. Basu, Advocate, Prayag Kandhar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Samrat Sen, Senior Advocate, Paritosh Sinha, Advocate, Amitava Mitra, Advocate, S. Dutt, Advocate, Sonia Nandy, Advocate, Naman Agarwal, Advocate
Buy Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 HERE
