Boutique Hospitality Firm Moves Delhi High Court Seeking Compulsory License Over Sound Recordings Owned By PPL

Boutique hospitality firm, Passcode Hospitality Private Limited, has moved the Delhi High Court seeking a grant of compulsory license over the sound recordings allegedly owned by Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), to utilize them in the national capital.

Justice Anish Dayal issued notice on the plea moved by Passcode Hospitality, which owns bars and restaurant chains like SAZ, PCO, Ping's Café Orient and Jamun, also seeking revision, and determination of licence rates for utilisation of the sound recordings.

The court said that PPL's response will indicate their published rates for all categories for the last five financial years, and specific reasons for their escalation this year (2023-2024) as opposed to the previous year (2022-2023).

“Reply be filed within four weeks with copies to the opposing side and rejoinder thereafter, if necessitated, before the next date of hearing,” the court said while listing the matter for hearing next on April 26.

In September 2022, PPL filed a suit for damages against Passcode Hospitality, alleging infringement of copyright of its sound recordings. The suit was settled later.

It is Passcode Hospitality's case that as per the terms of the settlement, it was granted a copyright licence for playing the entire repertoire, of which copyright is owned by PPL for one year commencing from November 04, 2022, and an amount of Rs.7,80,715 was agreed as the licence fee.

For this year, PPL demanded an enhanced amount of Rs.18,13,560 as the licence which, according to Passcode, was unreasonable and arbitrary and amounts to excessive appropriation by the former.

Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi appearing for Passcode Hospitality claimed that an interim arrangement can be arrived at between the parties by indicating a reasonable fee that the firm can pay for the removal of a licence, subject to the determination of the plea.

However, Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal appearing for PPL questioned the maintainability of the petition and contended that Passcode's case falls under Section 31(a) and not Section 31(b) of the Copyright Act since it is not a broadcasting agency.

Passcode's plea states that PPL's acts to unilaterally, unreasonably and arbitrarily set and increase the tariff rates for its sound recordings at any rate based on its whims and fancies, amounts to a refusal to allow communication of the work and performance of a work, as a result of which they are effectively being withheld from the public.

“The Respondent's acts are against the provisions of the Copyright Act which safeguards the rights of the public to republish, perform or have the access to the published works on fair and equitable terms. The acts of the Respondents are therefore against the public interest sought to be protected by the Copyright Act,” the plea adds.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Mr. S. Santanam Swaminathan, Mr. Sumeher Bajaj, Mr. Kartik Malhotra, Mr. Anindit Mandal and Mr. Ritik Raghuvanshi, Advs

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankur Sangal, Ms. Sucheta Roy and Mr. Raghu Vinayak Sinha, Advs

Title: PASSCODE HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED v. PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LIMITED

Click Here To Read Order