In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court held that Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) cannot grant licenses for its sound recordings unless it is registered as a copyright society or is a member of one. The division bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul passed the verdict on April 15, 2025, in an appeal filed by Azure Hospitality Private Limited.
Azure Hospitality, which operates popular restaurants like ‘Mamagoto’, ‘Dhaba’, and ‘Sly Granny’, had been using sound recordings from PPL’s catalogue in its outlets without obtaining licenses. PPL, claiming copyright ownership over these recordings, filed a suit (CS (Comm) 714/2022) and sought a permanent injunction to restrain Azure from such usage.
Earlier, a single-judge bench had granted an interim order against Azure, restraining it from using PPL’s copyrighted works pending final disposal of the case. Aggrieved, Azure approached the Division Bench in appeal.
The court reviewed PPL’s claim that it owns and controls public performance rights of over 400 music labels and more than 4 million sound recordings, both Indian and international. These rights were assigned to PPL under Section 18(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
However, the court clarified:
“We, therefore, are unable to accept the principle that PPL was entitled, without either registering itself as a copyright society or becoming a member of any registered copyright society, to issue licenses in respect of the sound recordings assigned to it under Section 18(1) of the Copyright Act.”
Between May 7, 1996, and June 21, 2014, PPL was a registered copyright society. However, due to the 2012 amendment in the Copyright Act, existing societies had to re-register. PPL’s re-registration application was rejected, making it currently an unregistered copyright society.
According to Section 33(1) of the Act:
“No person or association of persons shall... carry on the business of issuing or granting licences... except under or in accordance with the registration granted under sub-section (3).”
While the civil suit is still pending, the court issued an interim arrangement:
“Azure would be required to make payment to PPL for playing the recordings on the basis of the Tariff Rate applicable to Recorded Music Performance Limited (RMPL), as if PPL were a member of RMPL.”
This payment, the court said, would be subject to the final decision in the ongoing suit (CS (Comm) 714/2022).
The court emphasized that even though PPL has legitimate rights over the sound recordings via assignment deeds, it cannot function like a copyright society without following the legal process under the Copyright Act.
It was also observed:
“If PPL were to permit the sound recordings in its repertoire to be licensed to others for being communicated to the public, that can only be in terms of the registration granted to RMPL, of which PPL would have to be a member.”
Azure’s plea to allow deposit instead of an interim injunction was rejected. The bench held that allowing exploitation of copyrighted works without payment would be inequitable.
Case Title: AZURE HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED v. PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED
Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Dayan Krishnan and Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Sr. Advs. with Mr. S. Santanam Swaminathan, Mr. Kartik Malhotra, Mr. Anindit Mandal, Mr. Rishabh Agarwal and Mr. Ritik Raghuvanshi, Advs
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Rajiv Nayar and Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Ankur Sangal, Mr. Raghu Vinayak Sinha, Ms. Sucheta Roy, Mr. Shaurya Pandey, Ms. Jahnavi Sindhu and Ms. Sugandh Shahi, Advs
