The Supreme Court has declined to entertain Percept Talent Management Ltd.’s challenge to a ₹14.49 crore (approx. US$1.5M) arbitral award in favour of former India Captain Sourav Ganguly, bringing the company’s latest attempt to overturn the decision to an end, according to reports.
The dispute originated from a Player Representation Agreement signed in 2003 that appointed Percept as Ganguly’s exclusive manager for commercial and endorsement engagements. The arrangement included minimum payment guarantees and a mechanism for sharing revenue generated through his commercial activities.
A three-member arbitral tribunal ruled in Ganguly’s favour in 2018, with the award carrying annual interest of 12% and ₹50 lakh (approx. US$52K) in costs. Percept subsequently challenged the outcome through the Calcutta High Court before approaching the Supreme Court.
KKR earnings emerge as key point of dispute
A central issue in the case was whether Ganguly’s earnings from his association with Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR) in the IPL came within the revenue-sharing provisions of his agreement with Percept.
Percept argued that the contract broadly covered promotional services, including activities connected with cricket matches, and disputed the tribunal’s treatment of Ganguly’s KKR playing income. The company maintained that relevant contractual provisions and evidence had not been properly considered when those earnings were placed outside the revenue-sharing arrangement.
During the Supreme Court proceedings, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana heard Percept’s challenge. Justice Joymalya Bagchi said during the hearing: “If that is how you interpreted the KKR promotional activities before the arbitrator, how can we allow you to come and argue before us that the definition of promotional activity must be seen in terms of the contract executed? One part is your playing of cricket, but there is another significant part where you are advertising.”
Percept also argued that judicial intervention in arbitral decisions under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is restricted in scope, maintaining that evidence and contractual interpretation could not simply be reconsidered because an alternative view was available.
Representation agreement develops into arbitration
Ganguly appointed Percept as his sole and exclusive manager in October 2003, with the agreement covering the management of his commercial rights and personality. Revenue generated through applicable arrangements was to be routed through an escrow account.
The contract included a termination provision linked to Ganguly remaining outside the Indian team for six consecutive months. After he lost his place in February 2006, the condition was met in August, but Percept continued representing him after his return to the national side in November that year.
Percept issued a termination notice in November 2007. The dispute eventually moved to arbitration, where Ganguly raised claims involving unpaid minimum guarantees and unauthorised withdrawals from the escrow account.
The tribunal accepted Ganguly’s claims. It also determined that his KKR playing payments did not form part of the commercial revenue-sharing arrangement with Percept.
High Court challenges precede Supreme Court case
Percept sought to have the arbitral decision set aside before the Calcutta High Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, but a Single Judge rejected the challenge in July 2025.
The company then appealed under Section 37. A Division Bench dismissed that case in April 2026, finding that Percept had not exercised its contractual termination right within a reasonable period and that its subsequent conduct was inconsistent with an intention to end the agreement.
The Division Bench also declined to interfere with the tribunal’s treatment of Ganguly’s KKR earnings, with the payments considered compensation for playing cricket rather than his individual endorsement activities.
Percept subsequently took its challenge to the Supreme Court. The court’s decision not to entertain the appeal leaves the arbitral outcome in Ganguly’s favour, including the stipulated interest and costs, undisturbed.
