Delhi High Court Restrains Company Which Owns Mamagoto, Dhaba From Playing Phonographic Performance's Copyrighted Songs In Its Restaurants

The Delhi High Court has granted a temporary injunction in favour of Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), restraining Azure Hospitality Private Limited which runs several restaurants, from playing PPL's copyrighted songs at the premises of its restaurants.Phonographic Performance Limited (plaintiff) is engaged in the business of issuing licences for public performance of sound recordings on the basis of the assignments granted to it by its various member record labels. PPL owns the public performance rights of 400+ music labels, with more than 4 million international and domestic sound recordings. The list of sound recordings in which PPL has copyright is available on its website www.pplindia.org/songs, which provides express notice of PPL's rights in the sound recordings to any user.Azure Hospitality Private Limited (defendant no.1) runs around 86 restaurants including 'Mamagoto', 'Dhaba' and 'Sly Granny' which have several outlets throughout India. It is stated that when PPL's representatives visited the restaurants being run by Azure Hospitality, they found that the restaurants were exploiting its sound recording without taking any license. PPL sent a cease and desist notice to Azure, but received no reply. PPL thus filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining Azure from infringing its copyright and other ancillary reliefs.Azure relied on a 2021 Madras High Court judgment in M/s.Novex Communications Pvt.Ltd v. DXC Technology Pvt. Ltd, where it was held that a copyright owner in their individual capacity is free to exploit the right by issuing a license, however, the 'business of issuing or granting licenses' can only be done by a copyright society. However, Jusitce Amit Bansal did not agree with the view taken by the Madras High Court. The Court referred to a Bombay High Court case in Novex Communications Pvt Ltd. vs. Trade Wings Hotesl Limited (2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 41), where it was held that music rights holders like Phonographic Performance Ltd and Novex are copyright owners and can issue music licenses even if they are not registered as copyright societies under Section 33(1) of the Copyrights Act. The Bombay High Court had differed from the Madras HC's judgment on the ground that the court had overlooked Section 30 of the Copyright Act in terms of which the owner has a right to grant a license in its copyrighted works.Agreeing with the Bombay High Court's view, the Court said that the right to give a license is an inherent right of a copyright owner under Section 30 of the Copyright Act. It noted that such right would include the 'business of issuing or granting licence'. It stated “This right would necessarily include the 'business of issuing or granting licence', the expression which occurs in Section 33 (1) and the second proviso thereto. Therefore, the second proviso to Section 33 (1) cannot put any fetters on the inherent right of a copyright owner to grant licenses in respect of his works or engage in the 'business of issuing or granting licence'.”The Court observed that Section 33 cannot override 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.In the present case, the Court noted that public performance rights of the sound recordings were assigned to PPL and thus it became the owner of the sound recordings. It noted that PPL prima facie established itself as the copyright owner of the sound recordings on the basis of assignment deeds in its favour. It also noted that the defendants did not deny that they are playing the PPL's copyrighted sound recordings. The Court was of the view that a prima facie case of copyright infringement was made out. “In light of the aforesaid legal position, the act of the defendants of playing the sound recordings in their restaurants/bars, for which the plaintiff holds the copyright would, on a prima facie view, amount to infringement of the plaintiff's copyright in terms of Section 51 of the Copyrights Act.” The Court thus restrained Azure Hospitality from exploiting or using PPL's copyrighted works in any of its outlets till the final adjudication of the suit.Case title: Phonographic Performance Limited vs. Azure Hospitality Private LimitedCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 271Counsels for PPL/Plaintiff: Mr. Rajiv Nayar and Mr. Chander M. Lall, Senior Advocates with Mr. Ankur Sangal, Ms. Sucheta Roy, Mr. Raghu Vinayak Sinha, Mr. Shaurya Pandey and Ms. Ananya MehanCounsels for Azure Hospitality/Defendant: Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S. Santanam Swaminadhan, Mr. Kartik Malhotra, Mr. A. Mandal, Mr. Ritik Raghuvanshi and Mr. Rishubh AgarwalClick Here To Read/Download Order

Delhi High Court Restrains Company Which Owns Mamagoto, Dhaba From Playing Phonographic Performance's Copyrighted Songs In Its Restaurants

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags