SC STAYS DELHI HC ORDER ON COPYRIGHT ROYALTIES FOR RESTAURANT MUSIC USE:

The Supreme Court has put a hold on the Delhi High Court's directive requiring Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. to pay Phonographic Performance Ltd. (PPL) in accordance with the tariff rates set by Recorded Music Performance Ltd. (RMPL), treating PPL as if it were an RMPL member, for playing songs from PPL’s catalogue.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued a notice in response to PPL’s special leave petition challenging the High Court division bench’s decision. That decision had modified an earlier interim injunction issued by a single judge, which had restrained Azure from using PPL’s copyrighted music. The Supreme Court clarified that its stay on the division bench’s order would not reinstate the single judge’s injunction against Azure.

“Issue notice, the impugned direction in terms of paragraph 27 will remain stayed. We however clarify that as a result of stay, the order dated 3rd March 2025 passed by single judge will not operate.”

The Supreme Court has not stayed the entire judgment of the Delhi High Court, which held that Phonographic Performance Ltd. (PPL) cannot issue or grant licences for the sound recordings in its catalogue unless it registers as a copyright society or becomes a member of a registered copyright society. The case arose from a copyright infringement suit filed by PPL against Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., a company that operates around 86 restaurants across India under various brands including ‘Mamagoto’, ‘Dhaba’, and ‘Sly Granny’. PPL alleged that its representatives discovered these restaurants playing copyrighted sound recordings from its repertoire without having obtained the necessary licence.

On March 3, 2025, a single judge of the Delhi High Court passed an interim injunction restraining Azure from using PPL’s copyrighted works at its restaurant outlets. The Court noted that PPL had established a prima facie case of copyright infringement on the basis of various assignment deeds and also pointed out that Azure had not denied the use of the recordings. However, when Azure challenged this interim order, the division bench of the High Court held that, since PPL is not a registered copyright society, it cannot issue licences unless it becomes a member of one. The bench relied on Section 18(1) of the Copyright Act to observe that PPL could not act as a licensing authority unless it met the statutory requirements of registration or membership in a registered copyright society.

Despite reaching this conclusion, the division bench, in an attempt to balance the equities involved, did not entirely set aside the interim injunction. Instead, it modified the single judge’s order by allowing Azure to continue using PPL’s recordings on the condition that it pays PPL according to the tariff fixed by Recorded Music Performance Ltd. (RMPL). This interim arrangement, the bench clarified, would remain subject to the final adjudication of PPL’s copyright infringement suit against Azure. It was against this modification that PPL filed the present Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court.

During the hearing, Justice Abhay S. Oka raised concerns over the High Court’s direction requiring Azure to pay PPL in accordance with RMPL’s tariff, questioning the legal basis for such an order. He remarked, “How such order can be passed? It was not prayed for also. Such order cannot be passed.” Justice Oka emphasized that the division bench had essentially modified the injunction granted by the single judge, and unless the Supreme Court reaches a final decision in the appeal, the injunction cannot be reinstated.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing on behalf of PPL, argued that the Supreme Court ought to stay the entire order passed by the division bench, rather than merely staying the direction requiring Azure to make payments as per the RMPL tariff.

However, Justice Oka refused to stay the judgment itself, stating, “That we will not stay. How can we stay the judgement? Today we are not deciding it finally.” The Court issued notice returnable on July 21, 2025