Mere Allegations of Harassment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Wife in Matrimonial Suicide Case 'Convenience Of Wife Not A Thumb Rule, But Custody Of Minor Child Is A Weighing Aspect': Punjab & Haryana HC Transfers Divorce Case To Rohtak MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Cooperative Society Is A “Veritable Party” To Arbitration Clause In Flat Agreements, Temple Trust Entitled To Arbitrate As Non-Signatory: Bombay High Court State Government Cannot Review Its Own Revisional Orders Under Section 41(3): Allahabad High Court Affirms Legal Bar on Successive Reviews When Several Issues Arise, Courts Must Answer Each With Reasons: Supreme Court Automatic Retention Trumps Lessee Tag: Calcutta High Court Declares Saregama India ‘Raiyat’, Directs Reconsideration of Land Conversion Application Recovery of Valid Ticket Raises Presumption of Bona Fide Travel – Burden Shifts to Railways: Delhi High Court Restores Railway Accident Claim Failure to Frame Issue on Limitation Vitiates Award of Compensation Under Telegraph Act: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Heritable Right: Gujarat High Court Rejects 9-Year Delayed Claim, Orders Re-Issuance of ₹4 Lakh Compensation Court Cannot Rewrite Contracts to Suit Contractor’s Convenience: Kerala High Court Upholds Termination of Road Work Under Risk and Cost Clause Post-Bail Conduct Is Irrelevant in Appeal Against Grant of Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Crucial Distinction Between Appeal and Cancellation Granting Anticipatory Bail to a Long-Absconding Accused Makes a Mockery of the Judicial Process: Supreme Court Cracks Down on Pre-Arrest Bail in Murder Case Recognition as an Intangible Asset Does Not Confer Ownership: Supreme Court Draws a Sharp Line Between Accounting Entries and Property Rights IBC Cannot Be the Guiding Principle for Restructuring the Ownership and Control of Spectrum: Supreme Court Reasserts Public Trust Over Natural Resources Courts Cannot Convict First and Search for Law Later: Supreme Court Faults Prosecution for Ignoring Statutory Foundation in Cement Case When the Law Itself Stood Withdrawn, How Could Its Violation Survive?: Supreme Court Quashes 1994 Cement Conviction Under E.C. Act Ten Years Means Ten Years – Not a Day Less: Supreme Court Refuses to Dilute Statutory Experience Requirement for SET Exemption SET in Malayalam Cannot Qualify You to Teach Economics: Supreme Court Upholds Subject-Specific Eligibility for HSST Appointments Outsourcing Cannot Become A Tool To Defeat Regularization: Supreme Court On Perennial Nature Of Government Work Once Similarly Placed Workers Were Regularized, Denial to Others Is Discrimination: Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Income Tax Daily-Wage Workers Right To Form Association Is Protected — But Not A Right To Run It Free From Regulation: Supreme Court Recalibrates Article 19 In Sports Governance S. Nithya Cannot Be Transplanted Into Cricket: Supreme Court Shields District Cricket Bodies From Judicially Imposed Structural Overhaul Will | Propounder Must Dispel Every Suspicious Circumstance — Failure Is Fatal: : Punjab & Haryana High Court Electronic Evidence Authenticity Jeopardized by Unexplained Delay and Procedural Omissions: MP High Court Rejects Belated 65B Application Not Answering to the Questions of the IO Would Not Ipso Facto Mean There Is Non-Cooperation: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Undertaking to Satisfy Award Is Not Waiver of Appeal: Supreme Court Restores Insurer’s Statutory Right

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