[This post is authored by Kartik Sharma. Kartik is a fourth-year student at the National Law School of India University and was the third prize winner in the 2024 Shamnad Basheer Essay Competition on IP law.]
To all the interested readers, there is another intriguing update in the Azure-PPL litigation story. Last week, a division bench of the Delhi HC had modified the single bench’s interim injunction passed against Azure Hospitality and on law held that PPL cannot issue licenses without itself being registered as a Copyright society or being a part of another society. (The rulings have been discussed here and here). Yesterday, as reported here, the Supreme Court issued notice in the SLP filed by PPL and ordered a stay on the direction contained in paragraph 27 of the division bench’s judgment, and clarified that the above stay on the division bench’s judgement will not restore the injunction granted by the single judge bench. (The order is not out yet on the Supreme Court website and in case any reader has access to it, please share the same with us. [Edit: The Supreme Court Order has now been uploaded on the website. Please see the screenshort below]) I will explain very briefly what this entails through a reference to the orders we have till now.
Implications of this on the Division Bench Order of the Delhi HC
On law, the division bench, after a detailed discussion, laid down its law on the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act and held that PPL cannot issue licenses in respect of its sound recordings without either registering itself as a copyright society or becoming a member of any registered copyright society (para 24.1).
In the context of the SC hearing, para 27 of the DB order is important. In this paragraph, the DB modified the single judge’s order and issued a direction to Azure to make payment to PPL as per the Tariff of the concerned copyright society- Recorded Music Performance Limited (RMPL), in case Azure intends to play any of the sound recordings of PPL. There was another direction passed directing both parties to place before the single judge, a three-monthly statement of the payments, if any, so made and received.
Now this paragraph is the direction that the SC has stayed in yesterday’s proceeding, and not the whole judgment of the division bench.
Will it bring back the Stay order granted by the Single Judge Order?
Previously, a single judge bench of the Delhi High Court had issued an interim injunction in favour of PPL, thereby restraining Azure Hospitality from exploitation/use of PPL’s copyrighted works. The SC yesterday said that the single judge order will also not operate as a result of the stay on the direction issued under para 27 of the DB order.
So, the consequence, as per my understanding, is: the DB’s direction ordering Azure to make payments to PPL as per RMPL’s tariffs is stayed. Also, the single judge’s interim injunction passed against Azure is also stayed. Therefore, technically, Azure can go ahead and play the sound recordings without payment of any fees to PPL.
In case any reader has a different understanding, please feel free to share the same with us below.
The Court has issued a notice returnable which requires the respondent (Azure) to respond by July 21, which is the next date on which the matter is listed.
WELL CONCLUDED KEEP IT UP
INTRESTING ARTICLE
There was one more important point which was put forth by the lawyers of PPL that others or Azure might misuse this order to infringe the contents of PPL but Honourable Justice , specifically cleared that , then you come back here for relief , if such incident happens.
Dear Anon,
Thank you for your comment! Really appreciate it. Just wondering whether obtaining such a relief would be possible at all? Because the SC did not stay the DB judgement entirely, which technically means that the PPL cannot issue any licenses.
I have been advised that there is no restriction on PPl in the DB order to initiate the infringement suit proceedings and consequently take injunction against the infringers. Also, the finding in the DB order that nobody can use the PPL copyrighted work without any license has not been stayed. Pls advise if there is any restriction like this in the order. If yes, then in which para.
Order is out –
Application seeking exemption from filing a certified copy of
the impugned order is allowed.
Issue notice, returnable on 21st July, 2025.
The impugned directions in terms of paragraph 27 of the
impugned order shall remain stayed. We, however, clarify that
notwithstanding this order of stay, the order dated 3rd March, 2025
passed by the learned Single Judge will not operate.
Excellent article!