Punjab and Haryana High Court grants Shehnaz Gill relief in dispute over "unfair" agreement with music label

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dismissed a plea against actress and singer Shehnaz Gill challenging a lower court order which had allowed her to take up projects with third parties without being restrained by an invalidly executed contract. [Sajjan Duhan v. Shehnaaz Gill].An appellate court in Mohali had granted a temporary injunction in favour of Gill on finding that her contract with Simran Music Industries and its proprietor Sajjan Duhan, was invalid. It held that Simran could not tell third parties to not work with Gill on projects.Duhan and Simran then filed a revision petition against this order before the High Court.Justice Gurbir Singh of the High Court upheld the lower court order, observing that the terms of the agreement between Gill and Simran are 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 had entered into a contract with Simran Music Industries in September 2019 by signing a document which she later contended was misrepresented to her as a mere “Memorandum of Understanding” (MoU) with respect to the future working relationship of the parties.On finding that Simran was sending e-mails to third parties claiming that Gill was its exclusive artist as per their 2019 agreement, Gill approached demanded a copy of the agreement, which Simran refused to share.Subsequently, Gill sent two legal notices to Simran, questioning its illegal actions and asking it to desist from addressing any further correspondence to third parties by making false accusations regarding her. In the second notice, Gill also told Simran that she had rescinded the said agreement and was, in no way, bound by the same.However, in February 2023, Gill found that Simran, after two years, suddenly raised an ownership conflict with regard to Gill’s music video, which was released on YouTube in December 2022. Consequently, Gill filed a suit for a declaration that the agreement of September 2019 between her and the petitioners was void and unenforceable. She also sought a permanent injunction from the court to prevent the petitioners from claiming ownership over her works and from defaming her or threatening third parties willing to work with her.The trial court dismissed Gill's application for a temporary injunction, stating no prima facie case was made. The appellate court, however, allowed Gill's appeal, finding that her reputation was being harmed by the petitioners and that the contract between the parties was not validly 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."Noting that if Gill is estopped from working with people other than Simran on the basis of the unfair agreement, she would suffer irreparable loss and injury, the High Court 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..[Read Order]