Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case Welfare of the Child is Paramount: Allahabad High Court Awards Custody to Biological Mother in Habeas Corpus Petition Due Process Followed Under Rule 3(b); No Error in Appointment Procedure: Calcutta High Court Denies Review in Temporary MMR Case Legitimacy Conferred by Section 16(1) of HMA: Madras High Court Upholds Partial Partition Claim Kerala High Court Voids Property Tax Demand Notices on Telecom Towers for Exceeding Limitation Period” Karnataka High Court directs government to pay compensation to long-term contractual employees in lieu of reinstatement and regularization. Execution Reports Are Crucial Before Issuing Non-Bailable Warrants: High Court of Jharkhand Quashes Warrants High Court Affirms J&K Bank’s Autonomy in Recruitment Policies, Suggests Inclusion of Ex-Servicemen” IT Act - Non-Issuance of Draft Assessment Order Renders Final Order Void, Delhi High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Rs. 2500 Crore Land Demand, Slams State for 'Commercialization Over Public Interest "Amendments Must Be Based on New Evidence, Not Repetitive Objections," Rules Himachal High Court No Error in Dismissing Petition to Call Original Agreement' in Cheque Bounce Case: Rajasthan High Court Affirms Trial Court’s Discretion Allahabad High Court Rejects Premature Divorce Petition Filed Within a Year of Marriage Allahabad High Court Rejects Premature Divorce Petition Filed Within a Year of Marriage Supreme Court Affirms Right to Horizontal Reservation for Disabled Candidates in Judicial Exams Patna High Court Upholds Rejection of Vehicle Release in Liquor Seizure Case, Cites Statutory Bar on Jurisdiction Pendency of Several Criminal Cases Cannot Be the Basis to Refuse Bail: P&H High Court in Counterfeit Currency Case “Consistency in Dying Declarations is Key to Conviction,” Rules Andhra Pradesh High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice: Sanction Not Obtained as Per Statutory Requirement Beneficial Legislation Like the DV Act Justifies Interim Relief Even After Prolonged Separation: Calcutta HC Defendant's Causal Approach Not Sufficient: Delhi High Court Dismisses Leave to Defend Application in Recovery Suit Mental Distance Between ‘May Be True’ and ‘Must Be True’” Requires Clear Evidence: High Court Overturns Conviction Leasehold Rights Expire with Lease Period: J&K High Court in Case Against J&K State Financial Corporation High Court Quashes Post-Retirement Pay Reduction: Emphasizes Natural Justice Revenue Authorities Have No Jurisdiction Over Title Disputes: Karnataka High Court Reaffirms 1938 Land Acquisition for Industrial Use NDPS | Extended Custody Unnecessary Where Seizure Is Intermediate and Investigation Concluded: Kerala High Court Adoption Severed All Ties with Biological Family – Madras High Court Upholds Legal Heirship Under Hindu Adoptions Act” Availability of Alternative Remedies Must Be Exhausted Before Seeking Judicial Intervention, MP High Court in Debt Recovery Case Balancing Speedy Trial and Justice: Additional Evidence Allowed,” says Orissa High Court in Death Penalty Case Recipient of Goods Can Seek Advance Ruling Under GST, Rules Rajasthan High Court Tender Terms and Conditions: Not Absolute, Cancellation Allowed in Public Interest: Telangana High Court Cancelled Tender for Redevelopment of Modern Abattoir Facility Supreme Court: “Mere Directorship Does Not Imply Liability” in National Housing Bank Case Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception: PH High Court Affirms in Suicide Abetment Case Taxation Law l Period Spent Before Incorrect Forum Must Be Excluded from Limitation Calculation: Uttarakhand High Court in Refund Claim Case Timeliness in Alimony Payments Must be Maintained Despite Appeals: Orissa High Court Victim’s Deposition is of Sterling Quality in Spite of Her Tender Age and the Corroborative Medical Evidence: High Court of Sikkim Upholds Conviction in Aggravated Sexual Assault Case” No Decree Under Section 31 Can Be Passed: Raj High Court Overturns Lower Court’s Decree in Financial Corporation Case High Court Rules in Favor of Shehnaaz Gill, Declares Agreement with Sajjan Duhan Void Due to Misrepresentation No Clear Mens Rea or Direct Instigation : Orissa High Court Quashes Abetment to Suicide Charges

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

15 November 2024 2:57 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