The Delhi High Court recently granted a permanent injunction in favor of Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) against multiple restaurants and bars, including ‘Mamagoto,’ ‘Dhaba,’ and ‘Sly Granny,’ after finding them engaged in unauthorized public performance of copyrighted sound recordings.
PPL discovered that these establishments were playing copyrighted music without obtaining the necessary licenses. Its representatives conducted site visits, confirming the infringement. A cease-and-desist notice was issued on July 20, 2022, but the restaurants and bars neither responded nor halted their activities.
A follow-up inspection in October 2022 further established continued unauthorized use, prompting PPL to file a legal suit seeking an injunction and additional reliefs.
The defendants, represented by Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar, contended that PPL lacked the legal authority to issue licenses or collect royalties under Section 33 of the Copyright Act, as it was not a registered copyright society. They also argued that PPL’s 2014 surrender of its registration and its pending re-registration application were relevant facts omitted from the legal filing.
Senior Advocates Rajiv Nayar and Chander M. Lall, representing PPL, countered that as an assignee of public performance rights, PPL was the rightful owner under Sections 14(e)(iii) and 18 of the Copyright Act.
They emphasized that publicly performing copyrighted sound recordings without a valid license constituted infringement under Section 51. They also clarified that PPL had initiated the lawsuit in its capacity as an owner rather than as a copyright society, which allowed it to regulate licensing and tariffs.
The court examined whether the suit was barred due to a similar commercial case previously filed by PPL before the Bombay High Court against Defendant No. 1. The defendants claimed that PPL had not disclosed the earlier case, while PPL argued that the Bombay litigation was based on a different cause of action.
A legal notice dated November 22, 2021, had informed restaurant owners that a one-time license was required to play PPL’s sound recordings during special events in the 2021-2022 festive season. When the defendants failed to obtain licenses, PPL filed 24 cases before the Bombay High Court against 900 parties, including one involving Defendant No. 1’s Khan Market outlet. However, that suit primarily sought an injunction and removal of infringing material, without any claim for damages.
The High Court distinguished the current case, noting that it targeted Defendant No. 1 as a separate legal entity operating around 86 restaurants and bars. Unlike the Bombay suit, which was a preemptive action anticipating infringement, the present lawsuit was based on documented instances of actual infringement discovered during PPL’s inspections on July 13 and 14, 2022. A cease-and-desist notice was issued on July 20, 2022, but was ignored. A subsequent inspection on October 12, 2022, confirmed continued unauthorized use.
Based on these findings, the court ruled that the cause of action in this case was distinct from the Bombay suit. While the latter was a precautionary measure ahead of a specific festive period, the present case dealt with ongoing and repeated violations of PPL’s copyright.
“The Bombay Suit was in the nature of a quia timet action premised on an impending infringement by the defendants therein on account of events to be organised by them for the festive season in December 2021 and January 2022. On the other hand, the present suit has been filed on the basis of actual infringement of the plaintiff’s copyrighted works carried out by the defendants”, the court noted.
The court noted that Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) prohibits the filing of a fresh suit on the same cause of action. However, as the present case was based on a distinct cause of action, this restriction did not apply. Additionally, the Bombay Suit had been withdrawn on July 4, 2022, without any judicial findings on its merits, making the withdrawal irrelevant to the adjudication of the current matter. Consequently, the plaintiff’s failure to disclose the earlier suit did not amount to suppression of material facts.
After analyzing the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act and judicial precedents, the court ruled that PPL, as the rightful assignee of public performance rights, had the authority to initiate legal proceedings for copyright infringement. Accordingly, the court granted an interim injunction, restraining the defendants from publicly performing PPL’s copyrighted works without a valid license.
Legal Representation:
- For Plaintiff: Senior Advocates Rajiv Nayar and Chander M. Lall, along with Advocates Ankur Sangal, Sucheta Roy, Raghu Vinayak Sinha, Shaurya Pandey, and Ananya Mehan.
- For Defendant: Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar, with Advocates S. Santanam Swaminadhan, Kartik Malhotra, A. Mandal, Ritik Raghuvanshi, and Rishubh Agarwal.
Case Title: Phonographic Performance Ltd v Azure Hospitality Pvt Ltd (2025:DHC:1367)