Image from here.
The story of Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) and its tryst with the Copyright Society framework continues. Readers will recall that in April 2025, a division bench (DB) of the Delhi HC in Azure v PPL had held that PPL cannot issue or grant licences for sound recordings without registering itself as a copyright society or becoming a member of any registered copyright society (Interested folks can refer to my detailed post for the ruling’s analysis). In its directions, the DB had also ordered Azure to pay royalties to PPL on the basis of Recorded Music Performance Ltd. (RMPL)’s tariff rates, as if PPL were a member of RMPL. PPL later filed an SLP before the Supreme Court, where the apex court had ordered a stay on paragraph 27 of the division bench’s judgment (which is the DB’s direction ordering Azure to make payments to PPL as per RMPL’s tariffs). More details here. The case before the SC is ongoing.
Fast forward to 9th January 2026, the scene is PPL’s another litigation with Passcode Hospitality before the Delhi HC. Since 2024, an Ad hoc Arrangement for the payment of License Fees to PPL has been ongoing between the two parties. After the Delhi HC’s decision in Azure came out, Passcode alleged that PPL was not competent to issue licenses without copyright society registrations. The ad hoc arrangement therefore, ought not to be continued. In any event, Passcode also argued that the tariff rates of RMPL should be applicable and the sums paid in excess to PPL be refunded to Passcode. It filed an IA 20757/2025 seeking refund of the money deposited.
The answer had to come from how the Court interprets the SC’s order passed in the SLP from Azure. For this, the Court analysed the stay granted by the SC on para 27 of Azure,in light of the clarification issued on 19 June 2025 in PPL’s application for clarification. PPL had prayed before the SC to “issue directions that the order passed in the present matter (including the order passed by this Hon’ble Court, Division Bench and the Single Judge) will only apply inter-se the parties to the and no third party can take the benefit of any of the said orders and use copyrighted works without an appropriate license”. In the 19th June order, the SC clarified that “the aforesaid order would be binding inter se between the parties to CS(COMM) 714 of 2022, pending before the learned Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court, which is in terms of the prayer “a.” of the application”.
The Delhi HC here observed that para 27 of Azure which was stayed also referred to previous observations (including para 25.5 as well). Thus, para 25.5 was also meant to be stayed. I am still unclear as to the relevance of this deduction. Para 25.5 from Azure is extracted below.
The Court also noted that the SC’s clarification referred to the Prayer A of PPL’s application, which mentioned that the direction in the orders passed in the SLP and the decision in Azure should apply inter se the Parties to the proceedings. Thus, the ad hoc arrangement was supposed to be continued (subject to the outcome of Passcode’s IA) and Azure could not be taken advantage of by Passcode.
The reasoning leaves us with some queries. Firstly, doesn’t the Court’s reading of previous observations into para 27 of Azure run contradictory to the SC’s specific stay on paragraph 27 of the ruling? One can also think about the distinction that needs to be drawn between what was stayed by SC and what was clarified to be applicable only inter se between PPL and Azure. A strict reading of the SC’s clarification can also mean that only the SC order staying para 27 of Azure would be binding inter se between Azure and PPL. What complicates the picture is the SC’s mention of ‘which is in terms of the prayer “a.” of the application’, as harking back to how PPL wanted the SLP stay to be clarified.
The case is up for hearing on 15th January 2026.
