Delhi High Court Continues Interim Music Licensing Framework In PPL–Pass Code Hospitality Dispute
Delhi High Court Continues Interim Music Licensing Framework In PPL–Pass Code Hospitality Dispute
Introduction
The Delhi High Court has extended the existing ad hoc licensing arrangement between Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) and Pass Code Hospitality Private Limited in an ongoing copyright infringement dispute concerning the public performance of sound recordings at hospitality venues. While continuing the interim arrangement, the Court noted that serious legal questions remain pending regarding PPL’s authority to issue licences without being registered as a copyright society under the Copyright Act, 1957.
Factual Background
Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) claims ownership and control over a repertoire of sound recordings. It alleged that Pass Code Hospitality, which operates several high-profile pubs and bars, was publicly playing these sound recordings without obtaining a valid licence, amounting to infringement under Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Pass Code did not deny the use of music but disputed PPL’s authority to license such recordings, particularly in light of evolving jurisprudence on the requirement of registration as a copyright society under Section 33 of the Act.
Procedural Background
At the initial hearing in April 2024, the Delhi High Court permitted Pass Code to continue using the sound recordings, subject to an ad hoc payment arrangement, in order to balance equities pending adjudication of PPL’s interim injunction application. Under successive court orders, Pass Code deposited a total of ₹30 lakh by January 2025. PPL was permitted to withdraw ₹17 lakh, with the balance retained in a fixed deposit. The dispute took a significant turn after a Division Bench decision in Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Phonographic Performance Ltd., which held that PPL cannot issue licences unless it is either a registered copyright society or a member of the registered society, RMPL. Moreover, relying on this decision Pass Code sought refund of the amounts deposited, contending that PPL had misrepresented its licensing authority and that liability, if any, should be determined as per RMPL tariffs.
Issues
1. Whether the ad hoc licensing arrangement should continue pending adjudication of the interim injunction and refund applications.
2. The effect of the Division Bench ruling in Azure Hospitality and the subsequent Supreme Court stay on PPL’s authority to license sound recordings.
3. Whether Pass Code was entitled to a refund of amounts deposited under the interim arrangement.
Contentions of the Parties
Pass Code Hospitality argued that: PPL lacked authority under Section 33 of the Copyright Act to issue licences. The Division Bench decision in Azure Hospitality squarely applied to the present dispute. Under RMPL tariffs, its liability was significantly lower, making the deposits excessive and refundable.
PPL contended that: The Azure Hospitality ruling does not operate erga omnes. The Supreme Court has stayed critical portions of the Division Bench judgment, limiting its applicability. The existing arrangement was a court-balanced interim mechanism and should not be disturbed until final adjudication.
Reasoning and Analysis
Justice Tejas Karia examined Section 33 of the Copyright Act and the scope of the Azure Hospitality judgment, along with the Supreme Court’s interim orders in appeal. The Court noted that while the Division Bench had clearly held that PPL could license sound recordings only if registered as a copyright society or as a member of one, the Supreme Court’s stay was limited to specific directions relating to payment at RMPL rates. The broader question of PPL’s authority remains pending before the apex court.
The Court observed that, “There is no embargo on PPL licensing the sound recordings assigned to it and forming part of its repertoire, but, for that purpose, PPL would have either to be a registered copyright society or a member of one.”
In this context, the Court held that prematurely terminating the ad hoc arrangement would upset the balance already achieved, especially since both the interim injunction application and the refund plea were still undecided.
Decision
The Delhi High Court directed that the ad hoc licensing arrangement be continued. Pass Code was ordered to deposit an additional ₹15 lakh for the period from May 2025 to February 2026. Of this amount, PPL was permitted to withdraw ₹8 lakh, with the remainder to be kept in fixed deposit, subject to the final outcome of the pending applications. The matter has been listed for further consideration on January 15, 2026.
In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Chander M. Lall, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Anku Sangal, Ms. Sucheta Roy, Mr. Ankit Arvind, Ms.Raghu Vinayak Sinha, Mr. Shaurya Pandey & Ms. Ananya Mehan, Advocates. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Kartik Malhotra, Mr. Sumeher Bajaj & Mr. Anindit Mandal, Advocates.
