The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently rejected a petition challenging a lower court's decision that permitted actress and singer Shehnaz Gill to engage in projects with third parties without being bound by an improperly executed contract.
An appellate court issued a temporary injunction in favor of Gill after determining that her contract with Simran Music Industries and its proprietor Sajjan Duhan was invalid. The court ruled that Simran Music Industries could not restrict third parties from collaborating with Gill on projects.
Duhan and Simran subsequently filed a revision petition challenging this decision before the High Court.
Justice Gurbir Singh of the High Court upheld the lower court's order, noting that the terms of the agreement between Gill and Simran were deemed unfair.
“In the present case, prima facie, the terms of the Agreement in question are unfair and the same is the result of one party having superior bargaining power and the other party at a very inferior position with low bargaining power. So, the Agreement cannot be prima facie considered to be valid and therefore, cannot be said to be binding on the plaintiff.''
''The defendants (petitioners before the High Court) did not interfere with the working of the plaintiff for a long period of two years after receiving legal notice from her, rescinding the Agreement in question. Balance of convenience is also in favor of the plaintiff," the Court said.
Gill entered into a contract with Simran Music Industries in September 2019, believing the document she signed was a mere "Memorandum of Understanding" (MoU) outlining their future working relationship.
Upon discovering that Simran was sending emails to third parties asserting Gill as its exclusive artist under their 2019 agreement, Gill requested a copy of the agreement, which Simran refused to provide.
Subsequently, Gill sent two legal notices to Simran, challenging its actions and demanding it cease falsely representing her to third parties. In the second notice, Gill explicitly rescinded the 2019 agreement and declared herself no longer bound by its terms.
However, in February 2023, Gill discovered that Simran had suddenly raised an ownership dispute over her music video, released on YouTube in December 2022.
In response, Gill filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that the September 2019 agreement with Simran was void and unenforceable. She also requested a permanent injunction to prevent Simran from claiming ownership over her works, defaming her, or threatening potential collaborators.
The trial court dismissed Gill's application for a temporary injunction, citing a lack of prima facie evidence.
The appellate court, however, sided with Gill on her appeal, determining that her reputation was being damaged by Simran Music Industries and that the contract between the parties was not properly executed.
The High Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, observing,
"The defendants (Simran) seemed to have acquiesced in December 2020 to the notice of the plaintiff (Gill), whereby plaintiff informed the defendants that she had rescinded the agreement. Defendants did not directly and indirectly interfere in the working of the plaintiff for the said period and allowed the plaintiff to work independently. The silence of defendants prima facie establishes that they took the Agreement to have been rescinded, as conveyed by the plaintiff."
The High Court, noting that enforcing the unfair agreement would cause Gill irreparable harm and loss, dismissed the petition.
Advocates Fury Jain and Taranjeet Singh Dosanjh appeared for Shehnaz Gill.
Senior Advocate Anmol Rattan Sidhu with Advocates Harlove Singh Rajput and Jashandeep Singh Bains represented the petitioners.
Case Title: Sajjan Duhan v. Shehnaaz Gill
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy