The Supreme Court of India on September 28, 2026, refused to entertain an appeal filed by Percept Talent Management Limited challenging a Calcutta High Court judgment that upheld a ₹14.49 crore arbitral award in favor of former Indian cricket captain Sourav Ganguly.

Match Fees vs. Endorsement Revenue

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana rejected Percept's argument that Ganguly's earnings from playing for the Indian Premier League (IPL) franchise Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR) fell under the revenue-sharing clause of their 2003 Player Representation Agreement.

Key Observations and Legal Findings

  • Distinction Between Playing and Endorsing: Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that while playing for KKR was a direct sports participation activity, commercial advertising represented a distinct activity. The Court noted that match fees earned under a playing contract could not be forcibly brought within the ambit of commercial representation.
  • Limited Scope of Judicial Interference: The Bench emphasized that under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, appellate courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or re-interpret contractual terms merely because another view is plausible.
  • Affirmation of High Court Findings: The ruling affirms the decisions of both a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, which found no patent illegality in the arbitral tribunal's interpretation.

With the dismissal of the appeal, the arbitral award of ₹14.49 crore in favor of Sourav Ganguly stands fully affirmed.