Bombay High Court: In a suit concerning unauthorised use of copyrighted sound recordings at a ticketed Diwali event, a Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., held that the defendant could not claim exemption under Section 52(1)(za), Copyright Act, 1957 (Copyright Act) as ticketed event are not religious ceremonies. The Court found that the plaintiff had prima facie established its rights in the sound recordings through assignment deeds and exclusive licensing arrangements, and therefore, as an exclusive licensee, was entitled to restrain unauthorised public performance. Since the defendant publicly played copyrighted sound recordings without securing a licence, the Court continued the ad interim injunction against such unlicensed public performance.
Background
The plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of sound recordings under assignment deeds and exclusive agreements with several music companies, with all such deeds and agreements being available on its website. It was a registered copyright society under Section 33, Copyright Act, 1957 (Copyright Act) and thereafter, surrendered its registration. It was entitled to grant licences for communication to the public and public performance under Section 30, Copyright Act, and since 2014, was issuing licence as the licence-holder of the copyright.
The defendant owned a cafe and rented out commercial premises for events. On 19 October 2025, a promotional poster was discovered by the plaintiff’s representative for a ticketed Diwali event titled “Bollywood Diwali Tamasha”. Despite being informed via email about the requirement of securing a licence, the defendant played copyrighted sound recordings at the event.
A cease-and-desist notice was issued on 14 November 2025. The defendant responded that the event was a private gathering exempted under Section 52(1)(za), Copyright Act. The plaintiff contended that the exemption applied only to religious events, whereas this was a ticketed Diwali party. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff was not a registered copyright society. It was further submitted that on 31 December 2025, the defendant again played copyrighted sound recordings. A suit was filed under Section 60, Copyright Act in Vadodara by the defendant, but the plaintiff stated that the proceedings therein would not come in a way of grant of ad interim relief by reason of proviso to Section 60, Copyright Act.
Analysis and Decision
The Court emphasised that the plaintiff’s rights in the sound recordings were prima facie demonstrated from the documents appended to the plaint. The Court observed that as the exclusive licensee, the plaintiff was entitled to grant licences for public performance and opined that the defendant’s actions on 19 October 2025 and 31 December 2025 amounted to violation of copyright.
The Court highlighted that despite a cease-and-desist notice, the defendant continued to hold events and play copyrighted sound recordings. The Court observed that the defendant’s reliance on Section 52(1)(za), Copyright Act was misplaced, as it had no application to ticketed events held in the defendant’s premises. The Court noted that the contention regarding the plaintiff not being a copyright society was clarified in Novex Communications (P) Ltd. v. Trade Wings Hotesl Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 252, where it was held that registration as a copyright society is not necessary for issuing licences.
Consequently, the Court held that a sufficient case was made out for grant of ad interim relief and issued an injunction restraining the defendant and associated persons from publicly performing or communicating the sound recordings without obtaining a licence from the plaintiff. The Court directed that the ad interim relief granted earlier would continue until the next date of hearing i.e. 1 April 2026.
[Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Yashraj Satwara, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 1599, decided on 27-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicant: Amogh Singh, Asmant Nimbalkar, Anil Kumar Singh, Rahul Arora, Chanchal Bhadresha i/b D. P. Singh