PPL files appeal but Supreme Court grants relief to Azure in copyright case over playing songs in restaurants

The Supreme Court on April 21 granted relief to Azure Hospitality in its copyright dispute with Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) over playing PPL's songs in restaurants owned by Azure [Phonographic Performance Limited v. Azure Hospitality Private Limited]..A Bench of Justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan stayed an interim direction issued by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court which had ordered Azure to make payments to PPL for playing any sound recordings part of PPL’s repertoire.Interestingly, this direction comes as a 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.On April 21, the Supreme Court confined to issuing notice on PPL's plea. It proceeded to stay a paragraph of the challenged High Court order that directed Azure to pay PPL if it were to use PPL'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.With this, the top court has effectively permitted Azure to play songs owned by PPL without the requirement of license and making any payments..The appeal by PPL was filed challenging an April 15 Division Bench order of the Delhi High Court.By this order, High Court asked Azure to make payments to PPL for playing its sound recordings, but also made certain observations against PPL.It had said that prima facie PPL cannot issue licences for public performance of sound recordings since the company is not a registered copyright society under the Copyright Act, 1957. Nevertheless, it had asked Azure to make payments to PPL till the matter was finally decided..PPL approached the top court against the observations by the Division Bench and also to reinstate an earlier March 3 interim order of the High Court's single-judge which had passed directions in favour of PPL.However, the Supreme Court not only put on hold the direction against Azure contained in paragraph 27 of the Division Bench order, but also stayed the earlier injunction issued by a single-judge of the High Court (March 3 order), which had restrained Azure from using PPL’s sound recordings without authorisation.The apex court made it clear that the interim order of the single-judge dated March 3 in favour of PPL will not operate..PPL is a copyright collective that is in the business of issuing licences for publicly playing songs (sound recordings) after the copyright over these songs are assigned to it by music record labels. It owns the public performance rights of 400+ music labels, with more than 4 million international and domestic sound recordings.In 2022, PPL approached the Delhi High Court, accusing Azure - which runs around 86 restaurants like Mamagoto, Dhaba and Sly Granny - of violating the copyrights owned by PPL 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.The single judge rejected Azure's argument that only registered copyright societies could issue licenses. PPL, though previously a registered society (until 2014), was acting as an assignee-owner, not a collective agent.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..The Division Bench 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. The top court, however, has so far only stayed that part of the Division Bench order that went against Azure. The matter is likely to be heard next in July. .PPL was represented in Supreme Court by Senior Advocates Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, Shyam Divan, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Gopal Jain and Akhil Sibal with Advocates Ankur Sangal, Sucheta Roy, Ankit Arvind, Raghu Vinayak Sinha and Shaurya Pandey from Khaitan and Co. .Azure was represented by Senior Advocates Aryama Sundaram and Swati Sukumar with Advocates Mr. S. Santanam Swaminadhan, Kartik Malhotra, Abhilasha Shrawat, Anindit Mandal and Aarthi Rajan..Note: An earlier version of the story incorrectly mentioned that the Supreme Court passed stay in favour of PPL. The error is regretted..[Read Order]