A lot has been happening with the repertoire of sound recordings that Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) claims to own and manage. It is being used in saree showrooms, a group of 94 restaurants, high profile pubs and bars, restaurants and more. Against all these places, PPL has asserted an infringement of copyright for playing music without obtaining licenses. This has created a bizarre mix of situations. Whether PPL can exercise any legal capacity to collect licensing fees, after having surrendered its authority as a registered copyright society, is a fact itself disputed in Azure at the Delhi High Court and this matter is now pending before the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, in parallel, a series of litigations involving PPL are also ensuing at the Bombay High Court. This offers important material for a comparative analysis. On the perspective of how PPL might exercise its licensing powers, the opinions of the Bombay High Court stand in direct contrast to that of the Delhi High Court. In addition to the courts’ differing approaches, the series of on-going cases involving PPL ask questions like whether a compulsory license is warranted for access to PPL’s claimed repertoire, whether there is justification for grant of ad-interim relief based verbatim on what PPL’s prayer clause demands and, in one case, whether issuance of a bailable warrant is justified.
In this post, I discuss these developments in a sequential timeline starting from the Supreme Court’s involvement and onwards. The status and functioning of copyright societies has often been a subject of criticism. These series of developments add a new layer to this ongoing issue. The kind of reception that litigants have received in relying on the Supreme Court’s Azure order deepens the divide between the Delhi and Bombay High Courts on justifications for how PPL might function.
The Law regarding PPL
First, a quick recap of what the copyright law in our country requires in relation to copyright societies. Copyright societies are substantially governed by Sections 33-36 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 with major amendments included through the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012. These societies function as collective administrators of rights of their members which includes issuing licenses, collecting and disbursing royalties, monitoring infringement and enforcing rights. Ideally there should be only one copyright society per class of work. A copyright society must gain registration from the central government.
PPL India was initially the registered copyright society for sound recordings in India and in decades of its operation it amassed an extensive repertoire. It surrendered its registration in 2014 and did not receive re-registration as per requirements of the 2012 Amendment. The registered society for these works now is Recorded Music Performance Ltd (RMPL). The legal status of PPL to collect royalties is currently under scrutiny. Presently, PPL maintains that it continues to exercise a somewhat same set of rights (here, demanding and issuing exclusive licenses) as it did as a copyright society because of ownership of its repertoire through assignment deeds. The next section explains why this claim is not as straightforward.
Judicial Decisions involving PPL in Delhi
Anushka and Kartik have given detailed summaries of the several twists and turns in the Azure case rulings (here, here, here and here). Very briefly, in April, 2025 a division bench at the Delhi High Court had held that PPL could not demand royalties from Azure in capacity as a copyright society since it was neither itself registered as such, nor was it a member of another registered copyright society. Azure was directed to pay royalties at the rate used by RMPL. PPL filed an SLP to the Supreme Court. The Apex Court stayed this payment of royalty and also stayed deposition of three-months statement of payment to the single judge.
It was further stated that this order would be binding inter-se between Azure and PPL. This specific condition was put to test in Passcodeand Al Hamd Tradenation where parallel litigations were underway. Passcode Hospitality requested an amendment to an interim royalty payment arrangement that had been put in place during the course of proceedings. The court rejected this request by directing that the payments continue until the Supreme Court resolves the issue of competency of PPL to seek licenses. In Al Hamd, the court deciding on the question of grant of compulsory license, said on the terms of interim relief that “…any directions passed in the present judgment, shall be subject to any directions passed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid matter that may have bearing on the outcome of the proceedings in the present case.” The matter is now under appeal (LPA 684/2025). For more on this case, see Lokesh’s post here.
The Azure condition was also put to test in Sagar Kumar where a fresh litigation was initiated after the Supreme Court’s order. On April 28, 2025 PPL sent a cease-and-desist notice to Sagar Kumar. On the same day the defendant responded by citing the Supreme Court order and questioning PPL’s authority. Bansal, J. presiding over the matter, refused to grant an interim injunction. By a liberal interpretation, this refusal could be understood as an interpretation of the Supreme Court’s stay of the single bench decision as having the effect of estopping PPL from demanding licenses. In the last order in this case the Delhi High Court had recorded the possibility of an out-of-court settlement, however, the SLP (13597/2025) from this matter is presently enjoined with Azure before the Supreme Court.
Existing interim payment arrangements are now contingent on the decision of the Supreme Court. Refusal of interim relief in a fresh matter could potentially be a signal from the court of a cautious limitation on PPL’s bargaining position. All these pending cases have now moved a step above towards appeals. When these decisions start coming out, it will most likely be a domino effect of either wins or losses for PPL. On the other side, the Bombay High Court has been more receptive of PPL’s business.
Judicial Decisions involving PPL in Bombay
On December 15, 2025 in Star Health, PPL asserted that it is “the owner of copyright in the sound recordings repertoire on the basis of the assignment/exclusive agreements of the relevant copyright” and that the Supreme Court order is only binding inter-se PPL and Azure. As has been the practice lately, which Kartik has also pointed out in his blog, ad-interim relief was granted verbatim “in terms of prayer clause (a)”. Though one news report claims “PPL India wins legal battle…”, the story is far from over.
A day later, the exact same order was issued against Karigari Restaurant. A week later, in Trinetra the arguments progressed a bit further, questioning the maintainability of the suit for non-impleadment of copyright owners, questionable legal status of PPL as a copyright society and improper documentation of assignment deeds. The locations in issue are a set of 94 commercial establishments. The court held that “the contrary decision taken by the Delhi High Court would not bind this Court and judicial discipline demands that the decision of Co-ordinate Bench be followed”, thus giving precedence to Novex over Azure and Al Hamd. Further, the court held that unstamped agreements would not cause a bar against issuance of ad-interim relief, yet again, granting relief “in terms of prayer clause (a)”.
In response to reliance of the defendants on Al Hamd, the Bombay High Court also held that unreasonableness of fee structure was not a defence to claims of infringement in Section 31 proceedings. The Trinetra decision is also now under appeal clubbed along with several other matters, crucially also including an appeal against Novex where the Bombay High Court had held that organisations not registered as copyright societies can issue licenses (see Tejaswini’s post here). In the meantime, orders delivered in cases in February (Yashraj Satwara) and March, 2026 (Absolute Legends League) have reverted to the earlier pattern: PPL claims ownership and right to license under Section 30, sends cease-and-desist notices, invokes Novex, obtains ad-interim relief. The Bombay High Court, thus, intends to follow its own precedent of Novex keeping the door open for PPL to issue and demand licenses on its own terms. Interestingly, Novex is itself under appeal now. Since this reopens the question on the capacity of PPL to function as a collective rights management organisation, there is now a possibility that the jurisprudence of both the above courts harmonises.
What to expect going forward
Despite the Supreme Court’s clarification on application of the stay order inter-se PPL and Azure, the involvement of the Supreme Court has had a visible ripple effect in all on-going litigations involving PPL’s repertoire. This ripple effect has, at least, the effect of keeping relevant the question of what legal territory PPL should function under. On a normative level, collective management of rights through copyright societies is supposed to function for the benefit of their members, at the same time facilitating access to works to beneficiaries and promoting communication of works to the public. In this background, and in practical application, an erstwhile copyright society shifting its business model to a for-profit venture raises legitimate concerns of monopolistic rent-seeking. In this specific regard, the decision of the court on claims of compulsory licensing will be especially noteworthy.
On the point of jurisprudence, the High Court of Bombay seems adamant on its divergence of opinion from that of Delhi. With Bombay’s own precedents now in appeal, the necessity of a decision from the Supreme Court becomes more pressing. If the Supreme Court permits PPL to function as it wants to, it risks legitimising a private entity to be doing the work of a copyright society. While hypothetically a solution like this could be possible under the existing statutory requirements of the Copyright Act, 1957, it risks undermining the entire scheme and purpose of collective rights management and the safeguards that come with it. All these outcomes are most certainly something to look out for in the months ahead!