Azure Hospitality Private Limited v. Phonographic Performance Limited

Brief facts

By judgment dated 3 March 2025 in CS(COMM) 714/2022, a Single Judge restrained Azure Hospitality, which runs restaurant outlets, from using PPL's copyrighted sound recordings until final adjudication. Azure appealed.

Issues before the Court

Whether the interim injunction in favour of PPL, which is not a registered copyright society, should be sustained, or whether a payment arrangement should apply instead.

Court's findings

The Division Bench held that the Single Judge's judgment could not be sustained in its terms and modified it (para 26).

Decision

IA 16777/2022 disposed of with a direction that, if Azure intends to play sound recordings from PPL's repertoire in its outlets, it must pay PPL as per the tariff of RMPL (a registered copyright society) displayed on RMPL's website; both parties to file three-monthly statements of payments before the Single Judge; payments subject to the outcome of the suit; appeal allowed to that extent, no costs.

Subsequent history: This Division Bench judgment modifies the Single Judge's interim injunction of 3 March 2025 (Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Azure Hospitality, CS(COMM) 714/2022).

Important paragraph references

Paras 26-28. Read with Novex Communications v. Rhythm Hospitality (Bombay High Court, 2024), also on IP Lex, on whether copyright owners that are not registered copyright societies may license and sue.

Important: This case note is a research summary only. It must be verified against the full judgment by a qualified lawyer, advocate or patent/trade mark attorney before any reliance. Do not rely on it as legal advice; Ragulika IP accepts no responsibility for its accuracy or for any action taken on it.