In a significant development in the ongoing copyright dispute between Phonographic Performance Ltd. (PPL) and Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on April 21, granted interim relief to Azure by staying a critical direction issued by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. This direction mandated Azure to make payments to PPL in accordance with the tariff rates of Recorded Music Performance Ltd. (RMPL), treating PPL as if it were a member of RMPL, despite PPL not being registered as a copyright society nor affiliated with RMPL.
As the case unfolds, it is poised to shape the contours of copyright licensing in India particularly the rights and limitations of entities seeking to enforce performance rights outside the framework of registered copyright societies.
Let us go through the timeline of the case:
Founded in 1941, Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), is a performance rights organization licensing its members’ sound recordings for communication to the public in the areas of public performance and broadcasting. PPL owns and/or controls the Public Performance rights of 450+ music labels, with over 70+ lakhs international and domestic sound recordings. Between 1996 and 2014, PPL was registered as a copyright society. However, following the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, it surrendered its registration and failed to obtain re-registration. Despite this, PPL continued to issue licences for public performance rights as an assignee of various copyright holders.
In 2022, PPL filed a Suit before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court against Azure Hospitality, the owner of prominent restaurant chains like Mamagoto and Sly Granny, alleging unauthorised public performance of sound recordings over which PPL owned copyright. PPL claimed that the rights to these sound recordings had been legitimately granted to it, and that Azure's use of these recordings without permission constituted copyright infringement.
Azure opposed PPL's claims, alleging that as PPL is not a registered copyright society under Section 33 of the Copyright Act, it does not have legal authority to issue such licenses or sue for infringement.
Single Judge Bench (March 3, 2025)1
The Hon’ble single judge bench decided in PPL’s favor. The Court held that regardless of whether it is a registered copyright society or not, a legitimate assignee of copyright has the authority to grant licenses and bring infringement lawsuits under Section 18(1) of the Copyright Act. Thus, the court granted an interim injunction restraining Azure from using PPL’s repertoire without authorization.
Division Bench (April 15, 2025)2
Azure appealed this order, and the Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul, delivered a key ruling that partially overturned the Hon’ble single judge's decision.
Observations:
The Division Bench ruled that a business that engages in collective licensing must abide by Section 33 of the Copyright Act, even though individual copyright owners or assignees are free to license their works. PPL was unable to lawfully grant such licenses as it was neither a registered copyright society nor a member of one.
The court observed that allowing entities like PPL to bypass the registration requirement would frustrate the very purpose of Chapter VII of the Copyright Act. It emphasized that the structure envisaged under Sections 33 and 33A is mandatory.
Interestingly, even while observing against PPL’s authority to license, the Court refrained from returning any finding on the issue of whether PPL can maintain the Suit at all and left the same open and the Division Bench directed Azure to make payments equivalent to the tariff rates of Recorded Music Performance Limited (RMPL), a registered copyright society, if it continued using PPL’s repertoire.
The court also ordered both parties to submit a three-monthly statement of payments made and received to the Single judge.
Supreme Court (April 21, 2025)3
The Hon’ble Supreme Court granted interim relief to Azure Hospitality. A bench comprising of Hon’ble Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice on PPL’s appeal and stayed paragraph 27 of the Delhi High Court Division Bench order dated April 15, 2025.
Key aspects of the Supreme Court’s order:
The direction contained in paragraph 27 of the Division Bench’s judgment requiring Azure to make payments to PPL in accordance with the tariff of Recorded Music Performance Limited (RMPL) has been stayed.
The court clarified that despite the stay, the interim injunction previously granted by the Delhi High Court’s Single judge on March 3rd, 2025, in favour of PPL, will not remain in effect.
Consequently, there is currently no active injunction or payment obligation against Azure Hospitality concerning the use of PPLs sound recordings.
Conclusion
This dispute has evolved into a significant legal battle in IP licensing landscape, while the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s Division Bench acknowledged the limitations of PPL’s licensing rights due to its lack of registration, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has presently tipped the scales in favour of Azure.
The eventual outcome of this case may set a crucial precedent on the role and authority of copyright assignees in India. It will determine whether entities not registered under the Copyright Act can continue to license rights, potentially redefining the framework for public performance licensing.
The matter is listed for further hearing before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on July 21st, 2025.
Huda Jafri, Associate at S.S. Rana & Co., has assisted in the research of this article.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1 CS (COMM) 714/2022
2 FAO(OS)(COMM) 41/2025
3 SLP(C) No. 10977/2025
