“Section 30 Rights Cannot Be Curtailed by Section 33”: Delhi High Court Upholds PPL’s Injunction Against Azure for Unlicensed Use of Sound Recordings
Isabella Mariam
The Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul issued an interim injunction against Azure Hospitality Private Limited. The order restrains Azure and its associates from exploiting copyrighted works administered by Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) across its outlets, pending final adjudication of the underlying suit. The Bench upheld the decision of the Single Judge, who had previously granted the injunction while dismissing Azure's application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC.
The dispute arises from CS (COMM) 714/2022 filed by PPL seeking a permanent injunction against Azure for using sound recordings over which PPL claimed copyright ownership. Azure, the defendant in the original suit, had been utilizing PPL-managed sound recordings in its commercial establishments without acquiring appropriate licenses. PPL alleged that it was assigned copyright under Section 18(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957 by the original producers, making it the rightful owner under Section 18(2).
According to the plaint, PPL claimed to control public performance rights of over 400 music labels, comprising approximately 4.5 million sound recordings, covering nearly 80-90% of all such works ever created in India. Azure was issued a cease-and-desist notice on July 20, 2022, but allegedly continued using the recordings. Consequently, PPL filed an interlocutory application (IA 16777/2022) under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for interim relief.
The Single Judge had on October 14, 2022, granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of PPL, finding a prima facie case. Azure responded with IA 17272/2022 seeking vacation of the order, which was rejected by the Single Judge on March 3, 2025.
The appeal was filed by Azure against this order, leading to the current judgment by the Division Bench.
Azure, represented by Senior Advocates Dayan Krishnan and Swathi Sukumar, argued that Section 33(1) of the Copyright Act mandates that only registered copyright societies can issue licenses in respect of sound recordings and PPL, whose re-registration as a copyright society was rejected, was ineligible to operate as one. They submitted that PPL, by claiming to be an assignee under Section 18(2), was circumventing the regulatory scheme envisaged under Sections 33 and 33A, enabling monopolization and exorbitant licensing without statutory oversight.
Azure contended that Section 33(1) prohibits any entity from engaging in the business of issuing licenses unless registered under Section 33(3). They relied on the 227th Parliamentary Standing Committee Report which stated that unchecked licensing practices by entities like PPL undermined the statutory balance and encouraged cartelisation. Counsel further stated that a bona fide copyright owner may license its works individually, but bulk owners engaged in systematic licensing operations must comply with the regime governing copyright societies.
PPL, represented by Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, countered that it was a bona fide assignee of the sound recordings and therefore had full rights under Section 30 to license those works without being a registered copyright society. PPL argued that ownership under Section 18(2) empowered it to license works independently. Mr. Sibal maintained that the injunction was appropriate given Azure's continued unauthorized usage and substantial commercial turnover.
The Division Bench recorded in detail the statutory framework, tracing the scheme of Sections 13, 14, 17, 18, 30, and 33 of the Copyright Act. The Court observed that under Section 18(2), PPL, as an assignee, became the owner of copyright and was entitled to exploit those rights under Section 30.
The Court stated in para 19.8: "if it is read in isolation, there appears to be no fetter on the terms at which PPL could licence its copyright in the sound recordings assigned to it by the producers thereof, under Section 18(1)." The Bench also noted: "Section 30 of the Copyright Act gives the right to an owner, which would also include an assignee, to grant a licence in his works either by himself or through an agent."
Addressing Section 33, the Court interpreted the phrase "business of issuing or granting licences" and distinguished between general ownership licensing and organized commercial exploitation. The Bench observed in para 39: "Section 33 cannot override the provisions of Section 30 of the Copyright Act which gives an absolute right to an owner of the copyright to grant any interest in the copyrighted work by way of a license."
Referring to precedent in Novex v Lemon Tree, Novex v Trade Wings, and Entertainment Network India v Super Cassette Industries, the Court upheld the position that Section 33 regulates only those entities acting as copyright societies and does not eliminate the independent right of a copyright owner or assignee to license its works.
The Court noted that PPL is not registered as a copyright society and thus is not governed by the regulatory obligations under Section 33(3). However, since it was asserting rights solely as an owner under Section 18(2), its conduct did not fall within the ambit of Section 33(1)'s restrictions.
On the point of tariff regulation under Section 33A, the Court recorded: "The interpretation placed by the learned Single Judge on the provision of the Copyright Act...would defeat this purpose and in effect reduce Section 33(1) to a dead letter." However, it found that the issue of reasonableness of tariff or monopolistic practices could not override the legal entitlement arising under Section 18(2).
In view of the discussion and legal reasoning recorded; the Division Bench modified the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Court held that IA 16777/2022 filed by PPL would stand disposed of with a direction that Azure may, if it intends to play any of the sound recordings forming part of PPL's repertoire in any of its outlets, make payment to PPL strictly in accordance with the Tariff published by Recorded Music Performance Limited (RMPL) as available on its website.
The Court further directed that both Azure and PPL are to submit a three-monthly statement of the payments made and received, respectively, before the learned Single Judge. It was clarified that such payments are to be made strictly subject to the final outcome of CS (COMM) 714/2022.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed to the said extent. There was no order as to costs.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Senior Advocates with Mr. S. Santanam Swaminathan, Mr. Kartik Malhotra, Mr. Anindit Mandal, Mr. Rishabh Agarwal, and Mr. Ritik Raghuvanshi, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocates with Mr. Ankur Sangal, Mr. Raghu Vinayak Sinha, Ms. Sucheta Roy, Mr. Shaurya Pandey, Ms. Jahnavi Sindhu, and Ms. Sugandh Shahi, Advocates.
Case Title: Azure Hospitality Private Limited v Phonographic Performance Limited
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:2561-DB
Case Number: FAO(OS)(COMM) 41/2025
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul
[Read/Download order]
