Bombay High Court Issues Bailable Warrants Against Effingut Directors In PPL Copyright Contempt; Warns Of Non-Bailable Action For Continued Non-Appearance

Bombay High Court Issues Bailable Warrants Against Effingut Directors In PPL Copyright Contempt; Warns Of Non-Bailable Action For Continued Non-Appearance

Introduction

The Bombay High Court has issued bailable warrants against four directors of Effingut Breweries in a contempt petition filed by Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) alleging violation of a prior undertaking relating to unauthorised broadcasting of copyrighted songs. The Court found that the directors failed to appear as directed and that there was prima facie non-compliance with earlier orders.

Factual Background

Effingut Breweries, a Pune-based craft beer brand operating pubs and lounges across cities such as Pune, Delhi, Mumbai and Gurugram, and its directors—Vishal Makar, Manish Tandon, Upesh Gulati and Monika Gulati—were arrayed as respondents in a contempt petition filed by Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL).

PPL, a copyright society administering public performance rights in sound recordings, alleged that the respondents were broadcasting songs in which PPL holds copyright without obtaining a valid licence. In a previous hearing, the respondents had undertaken before the Court that they would not broadcast PPL’s copyrighted works without securing a licence. Based on this undertaking, the directors were permitted to appear before the Court virtually.

However, PPL contended that despite the undertaking, the respondents continued to broadcast copyrighted songs. It was further alleged that the respondents transferred ₹4 lakhs to PPL purportedly towards licence fees without prior discussion or agreement on licensing terms. The amount was returned by PPL as unacceptable.

Procedural Background

The contempt petition came up before Justice Sharmila Deshmukh. On 6 January 2026, the Court had permitted Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 (the directors) to appear through video conferencing.

When the matter was taken up on 2 February 2026, counsel for PPL submitted that no valid licence had been obtained and that the respondents were in breach of their undertaking. An affidavit was placed on record stating that representatives of PPL had visited the respondents’ premises and found unauthorised broadcasting of copyrighted songs.

The Court noted that though one of the directors appeared virtually, the video was switched off, making it difficult to ascertain his presence. The Court further observed that despite permission to appear through video conferencing, the respondents had effectively failed to appear.

Issues

1. Whether the respondents had violated their undertaking not to broadcast PPL’s copyrighted songs without licence.

2. Whether failure of the directors to appear before the Court warranted coercive steps in contempt proceedings.

3. Whether issuance of bailable warrants was justified in the circumstances.

Contentions of the Parties

PPL contended that the respondents were in blatant violation of their undertaking to the Court. It was submitted that despite the assurance given, copyrighted songs were being broadcast at the respondents’ establishments without a valid licence. The transfer of ₹4 lakhs without any agreed licensing terms was described as arbitrary and unacceptable.

The respondents’ counsel appeared in the matter; however, the Court found that the directors had not complied with the direction to appear properly before the Court.

Reasoning and Analysis

Justice Sharmila Deshmukh observed that the earlier order permitted the directors to appear through video conferencing, and such permission carried with it the obligation to meaningfully participate in the proceedings. The Court noted that the respondents had failed to ensure proper appearance, as evidenced by the video being switched off and their absence when the matter was called.

The Court further took note of the allegations of continued unauthorised broadcasting despite an undertaking to the Court. In contempt jurisdiction, compliance with court orders and undertakings is paramount. The failure to appear as directed and the alleged breach of undertaking justified invocation of coercive measures.

In view of the respondents’ conduct, the Court held that issuance of bailable warrants was warranted to secure their presence and ensure compliance with judicial directions.

Decision

The Bombay High Court issued bailable warrants against Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 (the directors of Effingut Breweries) in the sum of ₹15,000 each, returnable on 24 February 2026.

The Court directed the respondents to remain personally present before the Court on the next date of hearing, failing which the Court cautioned that it would be constrained to issue non-bailable warrants. The matter was adjourned to 24 February 2026.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Amogh Singh, Mr. Asmant Nimbalkar, Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Mr. Neeraj Nawar, Mr. Hiten Wasan and Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Advocates.

Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Mr. Abhiraj Parab and Ms. Samiksha Malekar, Advocates.