Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan clarified that its interim stay order is binding only inter se the parties to CS(COMM) 714 of 2022 pending before the Delhi High Court, and cannot be relied upon by third parties to avoid payment of licence fees to PPL. 

• The Supreme Court  held this in the matter of Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Azure Hospitality Private Limited (2025). 

What was the Background of Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Azure Hospitality Private Limited. (2025) Case? 

• Plaintiff: Phonographic Performance Ltd. (PPL) - A music licensing company claiming ownership of copyrighted sound recordings. 
• Defendant: Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. - Restaurant chain operator running approximately 86 outlets under brands including 'Mamagoto', 'Dhaba', and 'Sly Granny'. 
• PPL filed a copyright infringement suit against Azure Hospitality alleging unauthorised use and exploitation of its copyrighted sound recordings in Azure's restaurants and bars without obtaining proper licensing. 
• PPL representatives discovered that Azure's restaurant outlets were playing copyrighted sound recordings owned by PPL without securing appropriate licences from PPL. 
• PPL sought licence fees from Azure for the commercial use of its sound recordings in the hospitality establishments. 
• PPL claimed exclusive rights to license its sound recording repertoire to commercial establishments. 
• Azure contested PPL's right to grant licences for sound recordings, questioning PPL's legal authority to do so. 
• Azure challenged the requirement to pay licence fees to PPL for playing music in its establishments. 
• Recorded Music Performance Ltd. (RMPL) operates as a registered copyright society with established tariff structures for music licensing. 
• The case involves questions about whether PPL can independently license sound recordings or must operate through registered copyright societies like RMPL. 
• The dispute affects the broader hospitality industry's obligations regarding music licensing and payments. 
• Other commercial establishments have been monitoring the case outcomes to understand their licensing obligations. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Delhi High Court Single Judge Observations (3rd March 2025): 
  • The Single Judge found that a prima facie case of copyright infringement was established against Azure Hospitality. 
  • The court recognised PPL's inherent right as owner of copyrighted works to license those works. 
  • The judge held that PPL's licensing rights could not be curtailed by Section 33 of the Copyright Act. 
  • An interim injunction was granted restraining Azure from playing PPL's copyrighted sound recordings in its outlets. 
• Delhi High Court Division Bench Observations (15th April 2025): 
  • The Division Bench modified the Single Judge's interim injunction order without ruling on the substantive merits of the copyright infringement claim. 
  • The court directed Azure to pay PPL licence fees calculated according to RMPL's established tariff structure. 
  • The Division Bench treated the payment arrangement as if PPL were a member of RMPL for tariff calculation purposes. 
  • This direction effectively allowed Azure to continue playing the music while ensuring compensation to PPL. 
• Supreme Court Observations (21st April 2025): 
  • The Supreme Court stayed the Division Bench's direction requiring Azure to make payments to PPL under RMPL tariff rates. 
  • The court clarified that the original Single Judge's interim injunction restraining Azure from playing PPL's songs would not operate during the stay period. 
  • The Supreme Court did not restore the complete prohibition on playing PPL's music, allowing Azure operational flexibility. 
• Supreme Court Clarificatory Observations (19th June 2025): 
  • The court emphasized that its 21st April 2025 stay order applies strictly inter se between the parties to the commercial suit (CS(COMM) 714 of 2022) pending before the Delhi High Court. 
  • The Supreme Court clarified that third parties cannot rely on the stay order to avoid paying licence fees to PPL for using its copyrighted sound recordings. 
  • The court distinguished between the specific litigation parties and broader industry obligations regarding music licensing. 
  • The clarification prevents misinterpretation of the stay order by commercial establishments not party to the specific litigation. 
• Judicial Approach: 
  • The courts have been careful to balance PPL's copyright interests with Azure's commercial operations. 
  • The Supreme Court has avoided making definitive rulings on substantive copyright issues, focusing on interim relief measures. 
  • The judiciary has recognised the broader industry implications while maintaining focus on the specific dispute between the parties. 

What is Section 33 of the Copyright Act,1957? 

• Section 33 deals with the Registration of Copyright society. 
• Primary Prohibition: 
  • No person or association of persons shall commence or carry on the business of issuing or granting licences in respect of any work in which copyright subsists except under registration granted by the Central Government. 
• Individual Copyright Owner's Rights: 
  • An owner of copyright shall, in his individual capacity, continue to have the right to grant licences in respect of his own works. 
  • Such individual licensing rights must be consistent with the copyright owner's obligations as a member of the registered copyright society. 
• Special Provisions for Cinematograph Films and Sound Recordings: 
  • The business of issuing or granting licence in respect of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works incorporated in cinematograph films or sound recordings shall be carried out only through a copyright society duly registered under the Act. 
• Transitional Provisions: 
  • A performing rights society functioning in accordance with Section 33 provisions before the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994 shall be deemed to be a copyright society. 
  • Every such existing society must get itself registered within one year from the commencement of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994. 
• Application Process: 
  • Any association of persons fulfilling prescribed conditions may apply for permission to do licensing business to the Registrar of Copyrights. 
  • The Registrar of Copyrights shall submit the application to the Central Government. 
• Registration Criteria: 
  • The Central Government may register an association as a copyright society having regard to the interests of authors and other owners of rights. 
  • The Government considers the interest and convenience of the public, particularly groups likely to seek licences. 
  • The ability and professional competence of the applicants is evaluated. 
  • Registration is subject to prescribed conditions. 
• Monopoly Provision: 
  • The Central Government shall not ordinarily register more than one copyright society to do business in respect of the same class of works. 
• Registration Duration and Renewal: 
  • Registration granted to a copyright society shall be for a period of five years. 
  • Registration may be renewed from time to time before the end of every five years on request in prescribed form. 
  • The Central Government may renew registration after considering the Registrar of Copyrights' report on the working of the copyright society. 
• Control Requirements for Renewal: 
  • Renewal of registration is subject to the continued collective control of the copyright society being shared with authors of works. 
  • Authors must maintain control in their capacity as owners of copyright or the right to receive royalty. 
• Existing Societies Compliance: 
  • Every copyright society already registered before the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 must get itself registered under this Chapter within one year. 
• Cancellation Powers: 
  • The Central Government may cancel registration if satisfied that a copyright society is being managed in a manner detrimental to the interests of authors and other owners of rights. 
  • Cancellation follows such inquiry as may be prescribed. 
• Suspension Powers: 
  • The Central Government may suspend registration if it considers such action necessary in the interest of authors and other owners of rights. 
  • Suspension may also occur for non-compliance of Sections 33A, sub-section (3) of Section 35, and Section 36. 
  • Suspension may be imposed for unauthorised changes in the copyright society's instrument of establishment or incorporation. 
  • Suspension shall not exceed one year as specified in the order. 
• Administrator Appointment: 
  • During suspension, the Government shall appoint an administrator to discharge the functions of the copyright society.