Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

High Court Rules in Favor of Shehnaaz Gill, Declares Agreement with Sajjan Duhan Void Due to Misrepresentation

17 November 2024 6:29 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Punjab and Haryana High Court emphasizes the importance of fair bargaining power and voids restrictive covenant in artist agreement.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled in favor of Shehnaaz Gill, a renowned film actor and singer, declaring the agreement she signed with Sajjan Kumar Duhan and Simran Music Industries as void and unenforceable. The court, presided over by Justice Gurbir Singh, highlighted the significance of equality in bargaining power and dismissed the restrictive covenants imposed on Gill, thereby allowing her to pursue her career freely.
The case revolves around an agreement dated September 25, 2019, between Shehnaaz Gill and Sajjan Kumar Duhan, proprietor of Simran Music Industries. Gill, under pressure and without adequate consideration, signed a "Memorandum of Understanding" just before entering the reality TV show 'Big Boss Season 13'. The agreement purportedly restricted her from working with other parties without Duhan's permission. Following her rise in fame, Gill faced several instances where Duhan sent legal threats to third parties, claiming exclusive rights over her performances based on this agreement.
The court scrutinized the circumstances under which the agreement was signed. It was found that Gill, an aspiring singer at the time, signed the agreement under duress and without proper legal counsel. The agreement lacked fair consideration and imposed one-sided obligations on Gill. "The terms of the agreement are manifestly unfair and were a result of unequal bargaining power," noted Justice Gurbir Singh.
Justice Singh observed that the defendants did not challenge Gill’s rescission of the agreement for over two years. "The defendants' silence and lack of objection to the rescission notice sent by the plaintiff in December 2020 indicate their acquiescence to the termination of the agreement," stated the court.
The court recognized the adverse impact the agreement and subsequent actions by the defendants had on Gill's career. The emails sent to various music labels, asserting exclusive rights, caused significant harm to her reputation and professional opportunities. "Such actions by the defendants amounted to an unjust restraint on the plaintiff’s right to trade and profession, which is opposed to public policy," emphasized Justice Singh.
The court delved into the principles of contract law, particularly focusing on Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which deals with agreements in restraint of trade. The judgment highlighted the necessity for freedom of contract to be based on equality of bargaining power. "The agreement in question is prima facie void, as it imposes an unfair negative covenant on the plaintiff, restricting her professional freedom without adequate consideration," ruled the court.
Justice Gurbir Singh remarked, "Freedom of contract must be founded upon equality and bargaining power between the contracting parties. The agreement in this case was a result of one party having superior bargaining power and the other party being in an inferior position with low bargaining power."
The High Court's decision to void the agreement between Shehnaaz Gill and Sajjan Kumar Duhan underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding principles of fair contract and equality. By dismissing the restrictive covenants imposed on Gill, the court has set a precedent emphasizing the importance of fair bargaining power and protecting individuals from exploitative contractual terms. This landmark judgment is expected to have significant implications for future cases involving artist agreements and employment contracts.
Date of Decision: July 01, 2024

 

Similar News