Calcutta High Court Upholds ₹14.49 Crore Arbitral Award To Sourav Ganguly Against Former Talent Manager

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday dismissed an appeal by Percept Talent Management Ltd., upholding a Rs. 14.49 crore arbitral award in favour of former Indian cricketer Sourav Ganguly and finding that the company had lost its right to terminate a 2003 Player Representation Agreement by waiting too long and continuing to act as his agent.

The judgment was delivered on April 16, 2026 by a Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi.

The court also upheld the arbitral tribunal's finding that payments Ganguly received from the IPL franchise Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR) did not fall within the revenue-sharing arrangement under the Player Representation Agreement (PRA), which governed his commercial and endorsement rights.

Ganguly had entered into the PRA with Percept on October 22, 2003, appointing it as the sole and exclusive manager of his commercial rights and personality exploitation. The agreement included a revenue-sharing mechanism and required earnings from such arrangements to be routed through an escrow account.

The contract allowed termination if he remained out of the Indian team for six continuous months. After losing his place in February 2006, that condition was met on August 1, 2006. Percept, however, did not act on it at the time. It continued to represent him even after he returned to the team on November 30, 2006, and issued a termination notice only on November 21, 2007.

The dispute later went to arbitration, where Ganguly alleged that minimum guarantees had not been paid and that there were unauthorized withdrawals from the escrow account. The tribunal accepted his claims and awarded Rs 14,49,91,000 with 12% interest, along with Rs 50,00,000 in costs.

A Single Judge subsequently refused to set aside the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Percept challenged that decision in appeal under Section 37, arguing that the tribunal had ignored the express terms of the agreement.

It maintained that once the non-selection clause was triggered, it had an unconditional right to terminate and that this right continued as long as the condition existed. It also contended that the Single Judge had effectively rewritten the contract.

Ganguly, in response, pointed to Percept's conduct after August 1, 2006. Over the following 16 months, the company continued to act as his agent, entered into arrangements on his behalf, and operated the escrow mechanism. On that basis, he argued that the right to terminate had been waived and could not be exercised later. He also submitted that the phrase “at any time” in the agreement could not be read to allow an indefinite delay.

The Division Bench agreed that the right to terminate had not been exercised within a reasonable time and that Percept's conduct was inconsistent with an intention to end the agreement. It held that the right stood waived and could not be invoked after Ganguly had already been re-selected to the team.

On the issue of the KKR contract, the court found no reason to interfere with the tribunal's conclusion that the payments were for playing cricket and not for individual endorsements. Activities undertaken under that arrangement were on behalf of the franchise, not personal commercial engagements, and therefore fell outside the scope of the agreement.

Emphasising the limited scope of judicial interference, the Bench observed:

“We are also of the opinion that when the learned Arbitral Tribunal, in its wisdom, accepted one plausible view against the other, no interference under the jurisdiction of Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was at all warranted. On this score also we are not in a position to hold at any stretch of imagination, that the learned Single Judge failed to exercise its jurisdiction under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”

Finding no error in the Single Judge's approach, the court dismissed the appeal.

For the Appellants: Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Adv. Mr. Ranjit Kr. Basu, Adv. Mr. Parag Khandhar, Adv. Mr. Sarbajit Mukherjee, Adv.

For the Respondent: Mr. Samrat Sen, Sr. Adv. Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv. Ms. Manali Bose, Adv. Mr. Amitava Mitra, Adv. Ms. Urmi Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Saurath Dutt, Adv. Mr. Naman Agarwal, Adv.