Delhi High Court Continues Ad-Hoc License Fee Arrangement In PPL Copyright Infringement Suit Against Hospitality Company

The order was passed by Justice Tejas Karia on January 9, 2026, while considering applications relating to continuation of interim licence fee deposits and a plea seeking refund of amounts already paid by the hospitality company for playing sound recordings at its outlets. The Court held that the interim arrangement should remain in force until pending applications in the matter are finally decided.

PPL informed the Court that it owns copyright in a large repertoire of sound recordings and alleged that Pass Code Hospitality had been using its sound recordings without obtaining a valid copyright licence, amounting to infringement under the Copyright Act, 1957.

At an early stage of the suit, the Court had put in place an ad-hoc arrangement permitting continued use of the recordings subject to periodic deposits of licence fees. Under this arrangement, a portion of the deposited amount was allowed to be withdrawn by PPL, while the remaining balance was directed to be kept in fixed deposit.

Pass Code Hospitality later sought a refund of the amounts deposited, claiming that PPL was not competent to issue licences as it was not a registered copyright society under Section 33 of the Copyright Act.

The hospitality company relied on the Division Bench ruling in Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Phonographic Performance Ltd., which held that PPL could not carry on the business of issuing licences without being registered as a copyright society or being a member of the registered society for sound recordings, Recording Music Performance Ltd. (RMPL). It was argued that, by applying RMPL's government-regulated tariff, PPL had already received excess amounts.

PPL opposed the plea, submitting that the Azure Hospitality ruling was under challenge before the Supreme Court. It was further stated that the Supreme Court had stayed the direction requiring Azure to use sound recordings as per RMPL's tariff and had clarified that the orders passed in the matter were binding only between the parties to that case.

After examining the rival submissions and the orders passed by the Supreme Court, the Court observed that the issue regarding PPL's authority to issue licences under Section 33 of the Act was still pending consideration before the apex court.

Noting that the copyrighted sound recordings could not be used without appropriate license, the Court observed, “Further, the order dated 19.06.2025 refers to Prayer A of the Application for Clarification of order dated 21.04.2025, which mentions that the direction in the orders passed in the SLP and the decision in Azure Hospitality (supra) should apply inter se the Parties to the proceedings and no third party can take the benefit of any of the said orders and use copyrighted works without an appropriate license.”

The Court also noted that the ad-hoc arrangement had been made purely to balance equities at the interim stage and was expressly made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides.

In view of the pending applications and the fact that the legal position was still sub judice, the Court held that the ad-hoc arrangement should continue on the same terms until the interim injunction application and the refund application are finally decided.

Accordingly, the Court directed Pass Code Hospitality to deposit a further sum of Rs 15 lakh towards ad-hoc licence fees for the period from May 4, 2025 to February 2, 2026.

Case Title: Phonographic Performance Limited v. Pass Code Hospitality P Ltd & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 43

Case No.: CS(COMM) 267/2024

For Plaintiff: Senior Advocate Chander M. Lall with Advocates Ankur Sangal, Sucheta Roy, Ankit Arvind, Sauhard Alung, Raghu Vinayak Sinha, Shaurya Pandey & Ananya Mehan

For Defendants: Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar with Advocates Kartik Malhotra, Sumeher Bajaj & Anindit Mandal