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
Copyright Act, 1957
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 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
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
- Can PPL issue licenses or enforce rights over its repertoire without being a registered copyright society?
- Was the High Court justified in modifying the injunction and allowing a workaround through RMPL’s tariff?
- Whether the High Court could direct a party to pay using a third party's tariff (RMPL), without such relief being prayed for?
- Should the injunction granted by the single judge be restored automatically upon stay of the division bench's direction?
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.