Supreme Court: While considering the instant petition seeking clarification of the Court’s previous order dated 21-4-2025, wherein it had put a stay on Delhi High Court’s order dated 15-4-2025, in Azure Hospitality (P) Ltd. v. Phonographic Performance Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2407 (impugned judgment); the Division Bench of Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan, JJ., clarified that stay granted via Order dated 21-4-2025, on directions issued in Para 27 of the impugned judgment, would be binding inter-se between Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL) and Azure Hospitality.
PPL v. Azure Hospitality: Background
PPL is a company limited by guarantee, registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, engaged in the business of issuing licences for public performance of sound recordings based on the assignments granted to it by its various member record labels. PPL owned and/or controlled the public performance rights of 400+ music labels, with more than 4 million international and domestic sound recordings. PPL had executed assignment deeds under Section 18 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (‘Act’) with its assignors in respect of the assignors’ sound recordings, wherein they had assigned the public performance rights of the sound recordings to the plaintiff. Between 07-05-1996 and 21-06-2014, PPL was a registered copyright society under Section 33 of the Act, and thereafter in 2014, due to the amendment brought in the Act, PPL surrendered its registration as there was a statutory requirement for all the registered copyright societies to re-register themselves.
Azure Hospitality is a company engaged in the business of running restaurants and bars in the casual dining sector. Some of the restaurants run by Azure include ‘Mamagoto’, ‘Dhaba’ and ‘Sly Granny’ which had several outlets throughout India including New Delhi.
The representatives of PPL visited the restaurants being run by Azure Hospitality at two locations and found that they were exploiting the sound recording of PPL in the said premises without taking any license from PPL. Aggrieved by the same, PPL sent a cease-and-desist notice to the defendants on 20-06-2022, but the defendants did not reply to the said notice. Upon visiting other premises owned by Azure Hospitality, representatives of PPL found that the infringement was continuing even after receipt of cease-and-desist notice.
Therefore, PPL filed a suit against Azure Hospitality before Delhi High Court.
PPL v. Azure Hospitality: Court Orders
On 3-3-2025, the single Judge Bench of Delhi High Court in Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Azure Hospitality (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1239, considering the legal position, the act of Azure playing the sound recordings in their restaurants/bars, for which the PPL held the copyright, held that the same would, on a prima facie view, amount to infringement of PPL’s copyright as per Section 51 of the Copyrights Act. Accordingly, the Court restrained Azure Hospitality, its directors, partners or proprietors, licensees, assigns, officers, servants, agents, representatives, contractors, sister concerns and any other person working for and on behalf of Azure from doing any act including exploitation/use of the plaintiff’s copyrighted works in any of its outlets till the final adjudication of the suit.
Aggrieved with the afore-stated decision, Azure preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. On 15-4-2025, the Division Bench via the impugned order contained in Para 27, modified the single Judge Bench’s order and directed Azure to make payment to PPL as per the tariff of Recorded Music Performance Limited (RMPL), as displayed on its website and in accordance with the terms thereof, in the event that Azure intends to play any of the sound recordings forming part of PPL’s repertoire in any of its outlets. Azure and PPL would both place on record before the Single Judge, a three-monthly statement of the payments, if any, so made and received. The payment would be strictly subject to the outcome of case pending before the single Judge Bench of the High Court.
Aggrieved with the Division Bench’s decision, PPL approached the Supreme Court. Therein the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan in Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Azure Hospitality (P) Ltd1 dated 21-4-2025, put a stay on the impugned order of the High Court contained in Para 27. However, the Supreme Court also clarified that notwithstanding order of stay, the order dated 3-3-2025 passed by the single Judge will not operate.
With the latest order dated 19-6-2025, the Supreme Court again clarified the position taken in its order 21-4-2025 and issued further clarification over the binding nature of the stay granted.
[Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Azure Hospitality (P) Ltd, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 10977/2025, decided on 19-6-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikram Nankani, Adv. Ms. Sucheta Roy, Adv. Mr. Ankit Arvind, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Pathak, Adv. M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shivani Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. A. Karthik, AOR Mr. Sugam Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Anindit Mandal, Adv. Ms. Abhilasha Shrawat, Adv. Mr. Hritwik Chaudhary, Adv. Mrs. Aarthi Rajan, AOR Mr. Viraj Datar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shikha Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. Manish Dhir, Adv. Ms. Kriti Rathi, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Chamoli, AOR
1. Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(S). 10977/2025
