Introduction
The case of Al Hamd Tradenation v. Phonographic Performance Limited is a significant copyright dispute adjudicated by the High Court of Delhi, addressing the issue of compulsory licensing under Section 31 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioner, Al Hamd Tradenation, sought a compulsory license to use the respondent’s sound recordings for a corporate event, alleging that the respondent, Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), demanded unreasonable and prohibitive license fees, effectively amounting to a refusal to license. The case delves into the balance between the copyright owner’s rights and the public’s interest in accessing copyrighted works, raising critical questions about the applicability of compulsory licensing provisions, the reasonableness of tariff structures, and the legal status of PPL as a licensing entity. The judgment, delivered on May 13, 2025, by Justice Mini Pushkarna, underscores the court’s authority to intervene when copyright owners impose arbitrary fees, reinforcing the statutory objective of ensuring equitable access to copyrighted works.
Detailed Factual Background
Al Hamd Tradenation, a Delhi-based event organizer, planned a corporate event for 50 persons on July 14, 2024, at Hotel Lutyens in Delhi. During the booking process, the hotel informed the petitioner that a license from PPL was required to play music at the event, with a quoted license fee of ₹49,500 for events hosting 1–150 persons. Upon checking PPL’s website, the petitioner noted that the fee had increased to ₹55,440, effective April 29, 2024. Deeming the fee excessive for a 50-person event, the petitioner, on July 2, 2024, offered PPL ₹16,500 (one-third of the original ₹49,500 fee), arguing that the reduced amount was proportionate to the event’s scale. PPL rejected this offer on the same day, prompting the petitioner to reiterate its proposal on July 3, 2024. Meanwhile, on July 9, 2024, PPL filed a copyright infringement suit (CS(COMM) 564/2024) against the petitioner, alleging unauthorized use of its sound recordings. Aggrieved by PPL’s high fees, which the petitioner deemed unreasonable, Al Hamd Tradenation filed the present petition seeking a compulsory license and determination of fair license rates.
PPL, a company claiming ownership of public performance rights in its repertoire of sound recordings through assignments, maintained that its tariff was reasonable and publicly available, applied uniformly to over 9,100 entities that had obtained 32,000 licenses since April 2023. The petitioner argued that PPL’s fee structure, which charged the same amount for 1–150 attendees and did not account for the number of songs or event duration, was arbitrary and constituted a de facto refusal to license, justifying a compulsory license under the Copyright Act.
Detailed Procedural Background
The petitioner filed the petition (C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 8/2024) under Section 31 of the Copyright Act, 1957, read with Rule 6 of the Copyright Rules, 2013, before the Delhi High Court, accompanied by applications I.A. 33181/2024 and I.A. 33182/2024. The petition sought a compulsory license to use PPL’s sound recordings and a court-determined reasonable license fee. The matter was heard by Justice Mini Pushkarna, with arguments presented by Mr. Aditya Ganju for the petitioner and Mr. Chander M. Lall, Senior Advocate, for the respondent. During the proceedings, the court noted a related legal development: PPL’s licensing authority had been challenged in Phonographic Performance Limited v. Azure Hospitality Private Limited (CS(COMM) 714/2022). In that case, a Single Judge had upheld PPL’s right to issue licenses on March 3, 2025, but the Division Bench, in Azure Hospitality Private Limited v. Phonographic Performance Limited (FAO(OS) (COMM) 41/2025, decided April 15, 2025), ruled that PPL, not being a registered copyright society, could not issue licenses independently and must operate through Recorded Music Performance Limited (RMPL), a registered copyright society. This ruling was stayed by the Supreme Court on April 21, 2025, in Phonographic Performance Limited v. Azure Hospitality Private Limited (SLP(C) No. 10977/2025), pending a hearing on July 21, 2025. The court clarified that its judgment would be subject to the Supreme Court’s final decision. The judgment was reserved and pronounced on May 13, 2025, directing the parties to file affidavits to determine compensation and listing the matter for further directions on May 29, 2025.
Issues Involved in the Case
Respondent’s Submissions (PPL): PPL defended its tariff as reasonable and uniformly applied, noting that over 9,100 entities had obtained licenses since April 2023. PPL argued that it had not withheld its repertoire, which was freely licensed to various establishments, and that the petitioner’s refusal to pay the published tariff did not justify a compulsory license. PPL contended that Section 31(1)(a) applies only when a work is withheld, not when a licensee disputes the fee. As the petitioner was not a broadcaster, PPL argued that Section 31(1)(b), which addresses unreasonable terms for broadcasts, was inapplicable, and the court’s role under Section 31(1)(a) was limited to addressing outright refusal, not assessing fee reasonableness. PPL further asserted that the right to perform in public under Section 31(1)(a) applies to literary, dramatic, and musical works, not sound recordings, which are limited to broadcasting under Section 31(1)(b). Citing Pune Video Theaters Association v. Cinemaster, PPL argued that its repertoire was publicly available, negating the petitioner’s claim. Finally, PPL maintained that its status as a copyright owner through assignments entitled it to set its own rates, subject to market acceptance.
Detailed Discussion on Judgments Cited by Parties
Entertainment Network (India) Limited v. Super Cassette Industries Limited, (2008) 13 SCC 30: Cited by the petitioner, this Supreme Court judgment elaborates on compulsory licensing under Section 31. The court emphasized balancing the copyright owner’s rights with public access, holding that unreasonable terms or arbitrary demands by the owner amount to a refusal to license, triggering compulsory licensing provisions. The judgment clarified that monopoly practices are discouraged, and copyrighted works, once public, must be available on reasonable terms. In the present case, the petitioner relied on this to argue that PPL’s high fees constituted a de facto refusal, justifying a compulsory license.
Anand Bhushan and Others v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9316: Cited by the court, this Delhi High Court Division Bench decision addressed tariff reasonableness under Section 33A. The court held that the Commercial Court, when reviewing a tariff scheme, can consider prevailing royalty standards for similar commercial exploitations. The petitioner indirectly benefited from this precedent, as the court used it to justify examining PPL’s tariff against RMPL’s standards, finding PPL’s structure unreasonable.
Pune Video Theaters Association v. Cinemaster, 2001 SCC OnLine CB 1: Cited by PPL, this Copyright Board decision involved video parlors exhibiting films. The Board found no withholding, as the films were publicly available, and the petitioner failed to identify withheld works. PPL argued that its repertoire was similarly accessible, negating the need for a compulsory license. The court distinguished this case, noting that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Entertainment Network established that unreasonable terms constitute refusal, rendering Pune Video inapplicable.
Phonographic Performance Limited v. Azure Hospitality Private Limited, CS(COMM) 714/2022, decided March 3, 2025: Referenced by the court, this Single Judge decision upheld PPL’s right to issue licenses based on assigned public performance rights. However, it was overturned by the Division Bench in Azure Hospitality Private Limited v. Phonographic Performance Limited, FAO(OS) (COMM) 41/2025, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2407, which held that PPL, not being a registered copyright society, could not issue licenses independently and must align with RMPL’s tariff. The Supreme Court’s stay in Phonographic Performance Limited v. Azure Hospitality Private Limited, SLP(C) No. 10977/2025, order dated April 21, 2025, suspended the Division Bench’s directions, leaving PPL’s licensing authority unresolved. The court noted this context but proceeded, subject to the Supreme Court’s final ruling.
Copinger and Skone James on Copyright (19th Edition, 2025, Para 32-02, Pg. 1147, Vol. II): Cited by the court, this treatise explains compulsory licenses as mechanisms allowing use of copyrighted works without owner consent, subject to payment. It distinguishes compulsory licenses, where rates are negotiated, from statutory licenses with fixed rates. The court used this to underscore that compulsory licenses ensure public access while compensating owners, supporting its authority to intervene in PPL’s tariff.
Detailed Reasoning and Analysis of Judge
Justice Mini Pushkarna’s reasoning focused on the statutory framework of the Copyright Act, the balance between copyright owners and public interest, and the specific circumstances of PPL’s tariff. The court began by addressing PPL’s licensing authority, noting the Division Bench’s ruling in Azure Hospitality that PPL, as a non-registered copyright society, must operate through RMPL. However, the Supreme Court’s stay of that ruling allowed the court to proceed, with a caveat that its directions were subject to the Supreme Court’s final decision.
On the merits, the court analyzed Section 31(1)(a), which allows compulsory licenses when a copyright owner refuses to republish or allow public performance, withholding the work from the public. The court rejected PPL’s contention that Section 31(1)(a) excludes sound recordings or limits the court’s role to outright refusal. Citing Entertainment Network, the court held that unreasonable terms constitute a refusal, as they effectively withhold the work. The court found PPL’s tariff unreasonable, as it charged ₹55,440 uniformly for 1–150 attendees, regardless of event specifics, contrasting this with RMPL’s nuanced tariff, which varied by venue and duration. The court noted that PPL’s structure did not account for the petitioner’s 50-person event, rendering the fee disproportionate.
The court clarified that “work” under Section 2(y) includes sound recordings, and “publication” under Section 3 encompasses public communication, including performance (Section 2(ff)). Thus, public performance of sound recordings falls under Section 31(1)(a), contrary to PPL’s argument that it is limited to literary, dramatic, and musical works. The court dismissed Pune Video Theaters as inapplicable, given the Supreme Court’s broader interpretation of refusal. The court also invoked Section 33A and Anand Bhushan to justify examining tariff reasonableness against prevailing standards, finding PPL’s fees arbitrary and monopolistic.
The court emphasized that the Copyright Act discourages monopolies and ensures public access on fair terms. Rule 8 of the Copyright Rules allowed the court to determine compensation based on prevailing royalty standards, reinforcing its authority to grant a compulsory license. The court concluded that PPL’s market dominance could not justify an arbitrary licensing regime, and the petitioner’s request for a compulsory license was meritorious.
Final Decision
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to a compulsory license due to PPL’s unreasonable tariff. To determine compensation, terms, and conditions, the court directed both parties to file affidavits of evidence within eight weeks. The matter was listed for further directions before the Roster Bench on May 29, 2025, with the judgment subject to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Phonographic Performance Limited v. Azure Hospitality Private Limited.
Law Settled in This Case
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
