Summary
In the case of The Indian Performing Right Society Limited vs Chocolate Hotels Private Limited, the Calcutta High Court restrained Chocolate Hotels from hosting a New Year’s Eve event involving music performances without obtaining a valid copyright license. The court held that such use of musical works without a license would amount to copyright infringement.
Music Copyrights and Event Hosting
The Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS), a registered copyright society under Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957, filed a suit against Chocolate Hotels for organizing a New Year’s event with music without its permission. The hotel was served notices on 3rd and 16th December 2025, requesting it to obtain a license for using musical works owned by IPRS members.
Despite service, Chocolate Hotels did not respond or appear before the court. The event was scheduled for 31st December 2025 at the hotel premises.
Questions Before the Court
• Whether hosting a New Year’s event involving public performance of copyrighted music without obtaining a license from IPRS amounts to copyright infringement?
• Whether an interim injunction should be granted against the hotel to restrain the event?
Arguments Presented By the Parties
Plaintiff (IPRS):
• The hotel planned to use copyrighted music through DJs, live bands, karaoke, and background scores, all without a valid license.
• Under Sections 13, 14, and 51 of the Copyright Act, public performance of copyrighted works requires a license from the copyright owner.
• The planned event without permission constitutes infringement and warrants urgent injunctive relief.
Respondent (Chocolate Hotels):
• Did not appear or file any response despite being served via email.
Court’s Analysis of Music Copyrights in Public Events
The court observed that IPRS is a registered copyright society with legal standing to enforce its members’ rights under the Copyright Act. According to the court, any communication of musical or literary works to the public—whether through DJ, live band, karaoke, or background music—constitutes copyright infringement if done without a valid license.
The court stated that IPRS had made clear communication to the hotel about the requirement of a license, but the hotel ignored these notices. It further stated that under Section 51, unauthorized public performance or communication to the public of copyrighted works amounts to infringement.
As per the court, the petitioner had made out a strong prima facie case, and the balance of convenience was in its favour. There was also a likelihood of irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted.
Findings
The court passed an interim order in terms of the prayer made by IPRS, restraining Chocolate Hotels from using any copyrighted music without a valid license. It also granted liberty to the hotel to approach the court for modification or vacation of the order if it chooses to comply with licensing requirements. If the hotel obtains the required license, the restraint order would automatically stand vacated.
Relevant Paras
“Despite receipt of such communications, the respondent has deliberately chosen not to respond… Prima facie, the petitioner has a statutory right whereby the respondent is obliged to obtain a licence from the petitioner before playing any of the above musical or literary works.” (Page 2, Para 2)
“In view of urgency pleaded on behalf of the petitioner, a strong prima facie case is made out on merits. The balance of convenience and irreparable injury is also in favour of interim orders being passed.” (Page 2, Para 2)
“In such circumstances, there shall be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the Notice of Motion.” (Page 2, Para 2)
“In case the respondent chooses to obtain a licence from the petitioner in accordance with law, the above order of restraint would automatically stand vacated.” (Page 2, Para 2)
Case Citation
The Indian Performing Right Society Limited vs Chocolate Hotels Private Limited, Calcutta High Court, I.P.(COM) No.56 of 2025, Decided on 24 December 2025.
Indian Kanoon link: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/121499659/ (Visited on 26 December 2025)
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog. Views are personal.