Lexpedia — Digital Smart Study
Latest JudgementCopyright Act, 1957

Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., 2025

The case involves the copyright infringement and licensing authority of Phonographic Performance Ltd. (PPL) against Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. regarding the use of PPL's sound recordings without a valid license.

Supreme Court of India·21 April 2025
Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., 2025
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

21 April 2025

Judges

Justice Abhay S. Oka ⦁ Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 18(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957 Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957

Facts of the Case

  • PPL claims rights over a vast catalogue of sound recordings.

  • It filed a copyright infringement suit against Azure Hospitality, which operates restaurants such as Mamagoto, Dhaba, and Sly Granny.

  • PPL alleged that its representatives found these restaurants playing its copyrighted music without a valid license.

  • On March 3, 2025, a single judge of the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction, restraining Azure from using PPL’s catalogue.

  • Azure challenged the order before a division bench, which held that PPL: Was not a registered copyright society. Therefore, could not issue licenses independently.

  • To strike a balance, the division bench modified the injunction, allowing Azure to continue using the music by paying PPL at RMPL's tariff rates, until final disposal.

  • PPL approached the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition (SLP), objecting to the RMPL-based payment arrangement and asserting that the entire order should be stayed.

Issues

  1. Can PPL issue licenses or enforce rights over its repertoire without being a registered copyright society?

  2. Was the High Court justified in modifying the injunction and allowing a workaround through RMPL’s tariff?

  3. Whether the High Court could direct a party to pay using a third party's tariff (RMPL), without such relief being prayed for?

  4. Should the injunction granted by the single judge be restored automatically upon stay of the division bench's direction?

Judgement

  • The Supreme Court stayed the specific direction in the division bench’s judgment (para 27) that required Azure to make payments to PPL based on RMPL's tariff.

  • This stay means that Azure is not required to follow RMPL’s tariff arrangement while the appeal is pending.

  • The Court clarified that the single judge’s injunction, which restrained Azure from using PPL’s music, will not be restored.

  • The stay on the division bench's direction does not automatically revive the earlier temporary injunction passed by the single judge on March 3, 2025.

  • Therefore, Azure can continue using PPL’s music pending the final decision.

  • The Court issued notice to Azure and scheduled the matter for final hearing on July 21, 2025.

  • The hearing will determine the final outcome of the case, including whether the division bench’s decision should stand.

  • Justice Oka questioned the legal validity of the division bench’s direction for Azure to pay PPL based on RMPL’s tariff.

  • He emphasized that such relief should not be granted if it was not specifically prayed for in the case.

  • This indicates that courts must stick to the issues raised in the pleadings and cannot provide remedies outside the scope of what was requested.

  • The Supreme Court made it clear that its interim order is not a final judgment on the matter.

  • The balance of equities (fairness to both parties) will be determined after the full hearing in July.

Held

  • PPL is not authorized to issue licenses for the use of copyrighted sound recordings unless: It is a registered copyright society under Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957. or, it is a member of a registered copyright society.

  • The Court made it clear that mere ownership or assignment of copyright does not grant PPL the power to grant licenses independently.

  • The Supreme Court stayed the division bench's direction that required Azure to pay PPL based on RMPL’s tariff.

  • This direction was found to be unlawful, as it was not specifically prayed for by PPL and was outside the scope of the pleadings.

  • Azure is not required to pay PPL according to RMPL’s rates until the final resolution of the case.

  • The single judge's injunction, which restrained Azure from using PPL’s music, will not be reinstated.

  • The stay on the division bench’s decision does not automatically restore the temporary injunction.

  • Therefore, Azure can continue using the music in its restaurants until the final hearing.

Analysis

  • The Supreme Court emphasized judicial discipline – courts must not grant reliefs beyond the scope of pleadings.

  • Justice Oka was clear that creative equitable solutions, like making payments as per RMPL's rates, should not override legal procedure or statutory compliance.

  • The core issue revolves around PPL’s legal status: If not a registered society, PPL has no statutory authority to issue licenses or claim license fees.

  • The division bench’s attempt to balance interests through RMPL's tariff might have been well-intentioned, but the Supreme Court found it legally flawed.

  • The judgment highlights strict statutory compliance as essential under Sections 18 and 33 of the Act.

  • It also reiterates that interim relief should not create new legal obligations or rights not sought by the parties.

  • The final outcome could reshape the licensing landscape in India, particularly for private copyright enforcement entities like PPL.
Copyrightseveral liabilityCrime