Last week, I wrote a post on a licensing quagmire covering the recent dispute between IPRS and Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited, which dealt with an important question of whether a hotel needs to take an IPRS license for cable TV to run in its hotel rooms. The Calcutta High Court said yes, and restrained Hotel Appolo from communicating musical and literary work owned by IPRS to guests through hotel-room television sets without a valid license, while the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the High Court. Now, on 2nd September, the Supreme Court heard an application by IPRS (IA 253210/2026), to vacate the interim stay that had been obtained on August 20th.
The Court ran into two interesting spots that are significant to note: a procedural one about a caveat that seems to have gone missing, and second a factual determination that takes us right back to discussions from my previous post.
Missing Caveat
On 24th August, during a listed mentioning, IPRS appeared before the Supreme Court stating they had lodged a caveat under the Supreme Court Rules on 6th August, about two weeks before Appolo’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) was even heard. A “caveat” under Section 148A of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) (based on Audi alteram partem) is a warning giving notice to a court not to take any step without giving notice to the party lodging the caveat. Yet, on 20th August, interim stay went through ex-parte without any discussion of the caveat or notice to IPRS!
For this, the Court has ordered the Registrar (Judicial Listing) to examine this issue and submit a report explaining how “caveat clearance” was obtained before the matter got listed on 20th August. This would require an audit under Order XXI Rule 9 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013, which deals with requirements for listing of an SLP when there is a caveat lodged. If there is procedural lapse on the part of the Registry, the stay order of the Supreme Court could be set aside, or could be rendered liable to recall with a fresh opportunity for IPRS counsels to be heard. This flows from not only the scheme of the Supreme Court Rules 2013, but also how courts have been treating such lapses: Indicatively, a Karnataka High Court in 1981 in G.C Siddalingappa v G C Veeranna held that a failure to notify the caveator vitiates the order since such notice is a condition precedent to interim relief. Similarly, an Allahabad High Court in 2021 in Akhilesh Kumar Jaiswal & Anr. V Karunesh Jaiswal & Ors. held that where a caveat is not reported and an order is passed without hearing the caveator, the order is liable to be recalled and the application could be reheard afresh, on the principle that an act of court should prejudice no one. Although these High Court rulings aren’t binding on the Supreme Court, they remain persuasive of the consistent procedural position in case of such a breach. Disciplinary action or other appropriate action may also be taken against those found responsible for the lapse once the report is submitted.
IPRS License
The second thread is a factual question asked multiple times by the Supreme Court: Whether the cable operator of whom Appolo is a subscriber has a license from IPRS?
On 2nd September, Appolo tried to back it up with an additional affidavit filed by its Managing Director, and annexed with a letter from its cable operator, Madhurima Brahma. The letter confirms that “all applicable and valid licences and authorisations, including the requisite copyright licence covering the television content services” were provided. But what it does not say is if any of these confirmed licenses are from IPRS.
In my previous post, at Check-in 5, we saw that generally IPRS doesn’t issue Television/Satellite Broadcast license to cable operators directly, but to broadcasting organisations. So, merely the letter from the cable operator doesn’t “in fact” confirm or answer the factual question of whether license has been obtained from IPRS without confirming whether the licenses held by the cable operator includes IPRS license. The Court directed Apollo to place the licenses possessed by the cable operator on record. I think this is a very important determination, which I also discussed briefly at Check-in 2 of my previous post as to the importance of examining the relevant documents than just statutory determination of what ought to be.
The next hearing is on 9th September 2026 when both the Registrar’s report, and the licenses possessed by cable operator, which possibly could have the actual IPRS license, will be on the table! These important documents could shake the foundation of the interim stay and determine the direction of the licensing saga!
[Thanks to Praharsh sir for comments on this piece]