Case: Sikka Star Satellites Vs. Star(I) Pvt.Ltd

2. The appellant, a proprietary concern of one Shakuntla Sikka, is a registered cable operator. Its business is run by her son and Attorney Holder Dharmendra Sikka alias Tony Sikka. The appellant was receiving signals for its customers from respondent though the decoders supplied by the respondent under an agreement dated 5.10.1999.3. The said Dharmendra Sikka is a promoter and director of Lucknow Entertainment Network Systems Pvt. Ltd. [for shorta franchisee of Siti Cable Network Ltd. [for shortCable]. The appellant had shifted the said decoders supplied by the respondent to the premises of LENS. The appellant also failed to pay the subscription fee and other fees to respondent in spite of demands. Therefore, the respondent disconnected the signals with effect from 17.4.2002. More than four years later, the appellant filed a petition before the Tribunal seeking restoration of signals. In the said complaint, the appellant alleged that it had no connection with LENS or Siti Cable; that it had shifted the decoders supplied by Respondent to LENS on the request of respondent; that it was regularly paying the dues to LENS; and that it was not therefore due in any amount to the respondent.The respondent filed a reply stating that the signals to appellant were disconnected on 17.4.2002 due toof the dues (subscription fee and other dues); that the decoders supplied by it for the exclusive use of appellant had been illegally transferred by the appellant to LENS and shifted to the premises of LENS; that Dharmendra Sikka who was in charge of the business of both appellant and LENS, was indulging in piracy by illegally transmitting signals of respondent; that respondent had lodged an FIR dated 13.12.2006 and anraid was conducted on the same day on the premises of the appellant; that it had also initiated criminal proceedings against the appellant and Dharmendra Sikka for offences under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; and that the appellant had suppressed all these relevant facts in the petition dated 21.12.2006. Respondent contended that the appellant was not therefore entitled to receive signals from it.

Reasoning: 6. Dharmendra Sikka appeared in person as attorney holder of the appellant. He submitted that the appellant had nothing to do with LENS and that LENS was controlled by Siti Cable and appellant could not be punished for any alleged breach or violation by LENS. He however was not able to deny that he was the founder Director of LENS. Nor was he able to deny the fact that decoders entrusted by the respondent to the appellant had been given to LENS and they were in possession of LENS. He could not point out anything in writing to show that respondent had consented to or requested the appellant to transfer the decoders to LENS. He was also not in a position to point out any material to show that appellant had cleared the dues to respondent. In the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.