Stay in Azure–PPL copyright dispute doesn't apply to third parties: Supreme Court clarifies

The Supreme Court on June 19 clarified that its April 21, 2025 stay order in the copyright dispute between restaurant chain Azure Hospitality and Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) applies strictly to the commercial suit pending before the Delhi High Court and does not extend to third parties..The clarification came through an order passed in response to an interlocutory application filed by PPL."Without entering into the rival contentions at this stage, we clarify that the aforesaid order would be binding inter se between the parties to CS(COMM) 714 of 2022, pending before the learned Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court," a Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan stated.By limiting the effect of the stay order to the parties involved in the suit, the Court clarified that its directions are not intended to apply to third parties or alter general licensing obligations..In 2022, PPL approached the Delhi High Court accusing Azure - which runs around 86 restaurants including Mamagoto, Dhaba and Sly Granny - of violating its copyright by playing PPL-owned songs without any authorisation.Azure argued that PPL, not being a registered copyright society under Section 33 of the Copyright Act, cannot issue licenses or sue for infringement.A single-judge of the Delhi High Court on March 3 held that PPL, through assignment deeds from music labels, became the owner of public performance rights in various sound recordings. As an assignee, PPL could license and sue for infringement, irrespective of its status as a copyright society..Azure then filed an appeal against the same before the Division Bench of the High Court.In its order of April 15, the Division Bench held that PPL cannot issue licences for the public performance of sound recordings, as it is not a registered copyright society under the Copyright Act, 1957. It observed that PPL’s claim of owning “80 to 90% of all sound recordings ever created in the country” did not entitle it to bypass the statutory licencing regime.The Division Bench proceeded to reverse the single judge’s March 3 decision that had allowed PPL to operate based on its rights as an assignee-owner. It opined that while individual owners may license their works, the business of licensing on behalf of others falls exclusively within the domain of registered copyright societies.However, the Division Bench also directed Azure to pay PPL a sum equivalent to what is charged by Recorded Music Performance Ltd, if the restaurants owned by Azure wished to play songs over which PPL claimed rights.PPL eventually moved the Supreme Court against the High Court's Division Bench order..On April 21, the Supreme Court stayed the interim direction issued by the Division Bench which had ordered Azure to make payments to PPL for playing any sound recordings part of PPL’s repertoire.Interestingly, this direction came as relief for Azure, although the appeal before the top court was filed by PPL against another direction of the High Court which barred it from issuing licences for the public performance of sound recordings.The apex court proceeded to stay a paragraph of the challenged High Court order that directed Azure to pay PPL if it were to use the latter's sound recordings."Issue notice. The impugned directions in terms of paragraph 27 of the impugned order shall remain stayed. We, however, clarify that notwithstanding this order of stay, the order dated 3rd March, 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge will not operate," the order said..This prompted PPL to seek a clarification from the Supreme Court, contending that the stay order was severely disrupting its business operations, as other establishments had begun refusing to pay licensing fees by misinterpreting the order as a general exemption. Thus, the court passed this order. .PPL was represented by Senior Advocates Gopal Jain and Vikram Nankani with Advocates Ankur Sangal, Sucheta Roy, Ankit Arvind and Nidhi Pathak from Khaitan & Co..Azure was represented by Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi and Swathi Sukumar with Advocates Santanam Swaminadhan, Kartik Malhotra, Abhilasha Shrawat, Anindit Mandal, Shreya Mansi James, Hritwik Chaudhary and Aarthi Rajan, AOR..National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI) was represented by Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi with Advocate Shivani Choudhary,Sugam Agrawal and Karthik. .Other respondents were represented by Senior Advocate Viraj Datar with Advocates Anindit Mandal, Abhilasha Shrawat, Hritwik Chaudhary, Aarthi Rajan, Shikha Sachdeva, Manish Dhir, Kriti Rathi and Adarsh Chamoli..[Read Order]