IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4450 OF 2008

Sikka Star Satellites ……. Appellant (s)

Vs.

Star (India) Pvt. Ltd. …… Respondent (s)  

O R D E R

This appeal is filed against the order dated 23.5.2008 passed by the

Telecom  Disputes  and  Settlement  Appellate  Tribunal  [for  short  ‘the

Tribunal’],  rejecting  Petition  No. 325 (C) of  2006 filed  by the  appellant

seeking a direction to the respondent to provide decoders to the appellant

and resume signals.

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 short ‘LENS’], a franchisee

of Siti Cable Network Ltd. [for short ‘Siti Cable’]. 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.  

4. The respondent filed a reply stating that the signals to appellant were

disconnected on 17.4.2002 due to non-payment of 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

2

illegally transmitting signals of respondent; that respondent had lodged an

FIR dated 13.12.2006 and an anti-piracy raid 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.  

5. The Tribunal by its  impugned order dated 23.5.2008 dismissed the

petition. It has recorded the following findings :  

(a) Though Smt. Shakuntla Sikka, a 75 years old handicapped widow,

was stated to be the proprietor of the appellant, its business was

actually managed by her son Dharmendra Sikka.

(b) The  said  Dharmender  Sikka  floated  a  Company  (LENS)  and

without the consent of the respondent, shifted and transferred the

decoders given by respondent to the appellant, to the said LENS (a

franchisee of Siti Cable), controlled by Dharmendra Sikka.  

(c) The appellant falsely alleged that it  had transferred respondent’s

decoders  to  LENS on the  instructions  of  respondent.  The same

3

were passed on surreptitiously to LENS without the consent of the

respondent.  

(d) The  respondent  disconnected  the  signals  to  appellant  as  large

amounts  due  to  it  had  not  been  paid.  In  fact  in  a  letter  dated

21.2.2002 written by Dharmendra Sikka as Director to LENS, he

had  admitted  that  Rs.  17.44  lakhs  were  due  to  respondent  on

account of the dues of appellant and LENS would pay it.  

(e) Four cheques for Rs. 4 lakhs each issued towards the dues were

dishonoured  and  large  amounts  were  due  by  appellant  to

respondent.  

The Tribunal  held  that  the  respondent  was  justified in  disconnecting  the

supply of signals to appellant; and as the appellant had suppressed material

facts and approached the Tribunal with unclean hands practicing deception,

the appellant was not entitled to any relief. The said order is challenged in

this appeal.   

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

4

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. The appeal is therefore dismissed as having no

merit.  

…………………………….J [R. V. Raveendran]

……………………………..J [Lokeshwar Singh Panta]

New Delhi; August 1, 2008

5