Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity Law of Limitation Binds All Equally, Including the State: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Review Petition with 5743 Days’ Delay Once Selected, All Are Equals: Allahabad High Court Slams State for Withholding Pay Protection From Later Batches of Ex-Servicemen Constables Non-Compliance With Section 42 of NDPS Act Is Fatal to Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Two Accused In 160 Kg Poppy Husk Case Unregistered Agreement Creating Right of Way Inadmissible in Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Summary Decree in Partition Suit Denied: Unequivocal Admissions Absent, Full Trial Necessary: Delhi High Court No Court Can Allow Itself to Be Used as an Instrument of Fraud: Delhi High Court Exposes Forged Writ Petition Filed in Name of Unaware Citizen "Deliberate Wage Splitting to Evade Provident Fund Dues Is Illegal": Bombay High Court Restores PF Authority's 7A Order Against Saket College and Centrum Direct Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife

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

 

Latest Legal News