Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tejas Karia, J
Phonographic Performance Limited – Appellant
Versus
Pass Code Hospitality Private Limited – Respondent
CS(COMM) 267/2024 & I.A. 20757/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Chander M. Lall, Anku Sangal, Sucheta Roy, Ankit Arvind, Raghu Vinayak Sinha, Shaurya Pandey, Ananya Mehan
For the Respondents: Swathi Sukumar, Kartik Malhotra, Sumeher Bajaj, Anindit Mandal

The Plaintiff cannot issue licenses for sound recordings without being a registered Copyright Society as per Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Headnote:(A) Copyright Act, 1957 - Section 51 and Section 33 - Infringement of copyright - The Plaintiff filed a suit against the Defendants for unauthorized use of sound recordings without a license. An ad hoc arrangement for license fees was established while the case was pending. The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff cannot issue licenses without being a registered Copyright Society as per Section 33. The ongoing necessity of the ad hoc arrangements was examined in light of recent case law. (Paras 2, 8, 23, 34)

(B) Copyright Licensing - The Court upheld the necessity of balance in interim arrangements while also addressing the implications of the Azure Hospitality decision regarding licensing rights. The Plaintiff's position regarding issues of misrepresentation and licensing authority was critically examined. (Paras 12, 14)

(C) Interim Arrangements - The Court ruled that the ad hoc arrangement for license fees should continue pending resolution of related applications, reaffirming the need for protection of rights and interests of both parties. (Paras 17, 35)

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, owner of copyright, alleged infringement by the Defendants using sound recordings in their establishments without a required license. The Defendants contended that the Plaintiff is not authorized to issue licenses due to non-registration as a Copyright Society as mandated by Section 33.

Findings of Court:
The Court determined that the ad hoc arrangement should remain in place until pending applications are resolved, ensuring fair balance between parties’ interests pending adjudication.

Issues: The key issues included whether the Plaintiff is entitled to issue licenses without being registered as a Copyright Society and the implications of the Azure Hospitality ruling on the current case.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court indicated that the Plaintiff's authority to issue licenses without registration is under scrutiny, and current payments must reflect licensed rates pending further legal clarity.

Result: The ad hoc arrangement is extended, with a further payment direction issued to the Defendants.

Table of Content
1. ownership of copyright and its infringement (Para 1 , 2)
2. ad hoc arrangement for interim license fees (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. submission of both parties on license fees (Para 12)
4. arguments regarding the applicability of prior judgement (Para 13 , 14)
5. impact of legal precedents on this case (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
6. interpretation of section 33 of the copyright act (Para 20 , 21)
7. breach of copyright society regulations (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
8. stay of previous orders and their implications (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
9. continuation of interim financial arrangements (Para 34)
10. final order on ad hoc license fees (Para 35)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

TEJAS KARIA, J

I.A. 7255/2024 & I.A. 8596/2024

FACTUALBACKGROUND:

1. The Plaintiff, Phonographic Performance Limited, is an owner of copyright in various sound recordings. Defendant No. 1, Pass Code Hospitality Private Limited, owns and operates various well-known high-profile pubs and bars.

2. The Plaintiff has filed the present Suit against the Defendants as the Defendants were using the Plaintiff’s sound recordings without taking any copyright license. As per Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (“Act”), if any party uses any sound recordings without an appropriate copyright license, the same amounts to infringement of copyright.

3. At the first hearing of the present Suit held on 10.04.2024, when the present Application was pressed by the Plaintiff, an Ad hoc Arrangement (“Ad hoc Arrangement”) for payment of License Fees on an ad hoc basis considering that the Parties were required to be heard on this Application, while permitting the continued use of sound recordings in the meantime.

4. Accordingly, an amount of ₹15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) was directed to be deposited by Defendant No. 1 as an ad hoc License Fees from 04.11.2023 till 03.08.2024. Out of the said amount, the Plaintiff was permitted to withdraw ₹8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) and the balance amount of ₹7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) was directed to be kept in an interest-bearing Fixed Deposit by the Registry for a term of one year initially and renewed thereafter. This Ad hoc Arrangement was subject to further orders of this Court and was arrived at to balance the equities between the Parties at the interim stage, without prejudice to the respective rights and contentions of the Parties as well as submissions made on behalf of them.

5. Subsequently, vide order dated 19.07.2024, the Ad hoc Arrangement determined vide order dated 10.04.2024 was extended for a period of three months starting from 03.08.2024 subject to Defendant No. 1 depositing another ad hoc License Fees of ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only), out of which ₹3,00,0000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) was permitted to be withdrawn by the Plaintiff in terms of the Ad hoc Arrangement made vide order dated 10.04.2024.

6. On 05.11.2024, the Ad hoc Arrangement was again extended till 04.02.2025 and it was directed that Defendant No. 1 shall deposit an amount of ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) towards an ad hoc License Fees for a period of three months starting from 04.11.2024 and the Plaintiff was permitted to withdraw an amount of ₹3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) from the said amount and the remaining amount was directed to be deposited in an interest-bearing account.

7. On 20.01.2025, the Ad hoc Arrangement was again extended till 04.05.2025 on the same terms as directed vide orders dated 19.07.2024 and 05.11.2024.

8. On 22.08.2025, Defendant No. 1 filed an Application being I.A. 20757/2025 seeking refund of the money deposited in terms of an Ad hoc Arrangement put in place vide orders dated 10.04.2024, 19.07.2024, 05.11.2024 and 20.01.2025 due to material misrepresentations made by the Plaintiff pertaining to his competency to issue licenses without being a registered Copyright Society under Section 33 of the Act. It was contended by Defendant No. 1 that th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHITejas Karia, JPhonographic Performance Limited – AppellantVersusPass Code Hospitality Private Limited – RespondentCS(COMM) 267/2024 & I.A. 20757/2024

The Plaintiff cannot issue licenses for sound recordings without being a registered Copyright Society as per Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tejas Karia, J
Phonographic Performance Limited – Appellant
Versus
Pass Code Hospitality Private Limited – Respondent
CS(COMM) 267/2024 & I.A. 20757/2024