Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With ₹14.49 Cr Arbitral Award To Sourav Ganguly Against Former Talent Manager

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with a ₹14.49 crore arbitral award in favour of former Indian cricketer Sourav Chandidas Ganguly in his dispute with Percept Talent Management Limited.

The award had directed payment of ₹14.49 crores along with 12% annual interest from November 21, 2007 until the award and further 12% interest thereafter besides ₹50 lakh towards costs.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana after hearing the parties said, “No case to interfere with the impugned order is made out. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed."

The case arose when Ganguly entered into the Player Representation Agreement (PRA) with Percept on October 22, 2003 appointing it as his exclusive manager. The agreement provided for revenue sharing and an escrow account, and permitted termination if Ganguly remained out of the Indian team for six consecutive months.

After he lost his place in February 2006, the condition was triggered on August 1, 2006 but Ganguly returned to the team on November 30, 2006. Percept issued the termination notice only on November 21, 2007.

The dispute went to arbitration after Ganguly alleged non payment of minimum guarantees and unauthorised escrow withdrawals. The tribunal awarded him ₹14.49 crore with 12% interest and ₹50 lakh costs. Percept's challenge was dismissed by the single judge on July 22, 2025.

Before the Division Bench, Percept argued that once the non selection condition was triggered, it acquired an unconditional right to terminate the PRA which remained available while the condition persisted.

The Division Bench dismissed Percept's appeal, holding that Percept had failed to exercise the termination right within a reasonable time and had continued representing Ganguly after his re selection. It also upheld the tribunal's finding that the KKR contract concerned Ganguly's cricketing obligations and not individual personality exploitation.

The Bench observed: “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.”

The Supreme Court has upheld the Calcutta High Court's judgment and refused to interfere with the ₹14.49 crore arbitral award in Ganguly's favour.

For Petitioner: Nakul Dewan, Ravi Prakash, Sr. Advocates, Advocates Parag Khandhar, Zara Dhanbhoora, Tapan Radkar, Chandra Prakash, D.S.K. Legal- 2420, AOR

For Respondent: Gourab Banerjee, Samrat Sen, Sr. Advocates, Advocates Manoj, Paritosh Sinha, Amitava Mitra, Manali Ali, Aparna Sinha- 2207, AOR, Naman Agarwal, Mohit Pandey, Rakesh Talukdar, Upasana Mukherjee