The Supreme Court has stayed a part of the Delhi High Court's direction asking Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. to pay Phonographic Performance Ltd. (PPL) according to the Recorded Music Performance Ltd. (RMPL) tariff. This direction had allowed PPL to be treated like a member of RMPL for charging licence fees for playing music in restaurants.
"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,”
— Supreme Court
A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice in response to PPL’s special leave petition (SLP) against the High Court’s division bench judgment. This judgment had modified an earlier injunction granted by a single judge, which had barred Azure from using PPL’s copyrighted music.
Read Also:- Absence of Motive Not a Ground for Acquittal If Circumstantial Evidence Is Strong: Supreme Court
However, the top court clarified that the stay on the High Court’s direction does not reinstate the earlier injunction against Azure. The Supreme Court has not stayed the full judgment, which ruled that PPL cannot issue licences for its sound recordings without becoming a registered copyright society or joining one.
PPL had filed a copyright infringement case against Azure Hospitality, which operates around 86 restaurants across India, including well-known brands such as Mamagoto, Dhaba, and Sly Granny. PPL claimed that its music was being played at these restaurants without proper licensing.
On March 3, 2025, a single judge of the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction, restraining Azure from playing PPL’s copyrighted content. The Court held that PPL had a strong initial case and observed that Azure did not deny the use of the copyrighted material.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Disturbed by Comedian Samay Raina's Remarks Against Persons with Disabilities
Later, Azure challenged the injunction. The division bench observed that PPL, not being registered under Section 18(1) of the Copyright Act, had no authority to issue licences. However, in order to balance the interests of both parties, the bench directed Azure to pay PPL according to RMPL’s tariff, if it wished to continue playing PPL’s recordings. This payment, it said, would be subject to the final outcome of the case.
“How such order can be passed? It was not prayed for also. Such order cannot be passed,”
— Justice Abhay S. Oka, questioning the High Court’s direction
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing PPL, argued that the entire High Court order should be stayed, not just the payment direction. However, the Supreme Court refused to stay the full order, clarifying that a final decision is yet to be made.
“That we will not stay. How can we stay the judgement? Today we are not deciding it finally.”
— Justice Abhay S. Oka
The Court has issued notice returnable on July 21, 2025.
Case Number: SLP(C) No. 10977/2025
Case Title: Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.
