Punjab and Haryana High Court grants relief to Shehnaz Gill in her dispute over ‘unfair’ deal with record label

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dismissed a petition against actress and singer Shehnaz Gill who was challenging a lower court order that had allowed her to participate in projects with third parties without being restricted by an invalidated contract.Sajjan Duhan vs Shehnaaz Gill)

A Mohali appellate court granted a temporary injunction in favour of Gill, holding that his contract with Simran Music Industries and its owner Sajjan Duhan was invalid. It held that Simran could not tell third parties not to work with Gill on projects.

Duhan and Simran then filed a review petition against this order before the High Court.

Justice Gurbir Singh The High Court upheld the lower court’s order, finding that the terms of the agreement between Gill and Simran were unfair.

“In the present case, prima facie, the terms of the agreement in question are unfair and are the result of one party having superior bargaining power and the other party being in a very inferior position with weak bargaining power. Thus, the agreement cannot be considered prima facie valid and, therefore, cannot be said to be binding on the plaintiff. The respondents (the petitioners before the High Court) did not obstruct the work of the plaintiff for a long period of two years after receiving a legal notice from her cancelling the agreement in question. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff,” said the Court.

Gill had entered into a contract with Simran Music Industries in September 2019 by signing a document which she claims was misrepresented to her as simply a “memorandum of understanding” (MoU) regarding the parties’ future working relationship.

After discovering that Simran was sending emails to third parties claiming that Gill was her exclusive artist as per their 2019 agreement, Gill approached and demanded a copy of the agreement, which Simran refused to share.

Gill subsequently sent two legal notices to Simran, challenging her illegal actions and asking her to stop sending any further correspondence to third parties making false accusations against her. In the second notice, Gill also informed Simran that she had terminated the said agreement and was in no way bound by it.

However, in February 2023, Gill discovered that Simran, after two years, had suddenly raised an ownership dispute regarding Gill’s music video, which was posted on YouTube in December 2022.

As a result, Gill filed a lawsuit seeking to have the September 2019 agreement between her and the claimants declared null and void. She also asked the court for a permanent injunction to prevent the claimants from claiming ownership of her works and from defaming her or threatening third parties who wish to work with her.

The trial court denied Gill’s request for a temporary injunction, stating that no At first glance the case was brought.

The Court of Appeal, however, allowed Gill’s appeal, finding that his reputation had been damaged by the applicants and that the contract between the parties had not been validly performed.

The High Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision, observing:

“The Defendants (Simran) appear to have acquiesced in December 2020 to the notice of the Complainant (Gill), whereby the Complainant informed the Defendants that she had terminated the Agreement. The Defendants did not interfere directly or indirectly with the Complainant’s work during the said period and allowed the Complainant to work independently. The Defendants’ silence establishes prima facie that they considered the Agreement to have been terminated, as indicated by the Complainant.”

Noting that if Gill was prevented from working with persons other than Simran on the basis of the unfair agreement, she would suffer irreparable loss and harm, the High Court dismissed the petition.

Advocates Fury Jain and Taranjeet Singh Dosanjh represented Shehnaz Gill.

Senior advocate Anmol Rattan Sidhu along with advocates Harlove Singh Rajput and Jashandeep Singh Bains appeared for the petitioners.