The Tribunal by its impugned order dated 23.5.2008 dismissed the petition.
The appellant falsely alleged that it had transferred respondents decoders to LENS on the instructions of respondent.
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.
Four cheques for Rs.
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.
Its business is run by her son and Attorney Holder Dharmendra Sikka alias Tony Sikka.
The respondent filed a reply stating that the signals to appellant were disconnected on 17.4.2002 due to number 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 illegally transmitting signals of respondent that respondent had lodged an FIR dated 13.12.2006 and an anti piracy raid was companyducted 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.
The appellant was receiving signals for its customers from respondent though the decoders supplied by the respondent under an agreement dated 5.10.1999.
In the said companyplaint, the appellant alleged that it had numberconnection 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 number therefore due in any amount to the respondent.
More than four years later, the appellant filed a petition before the Tribunal seeking restoration of signals.
The said Dharmendra Sikka is a promoter and director of Lucknow Entertainment Network Systems Pvt.
The appellant, a proprietary companycern of one Shakuntla Sikka, is a registered cable operator.
It has recorded the following findings Though Smt.
Respondent companytended that the appellant was number therefore entitled to receive signals from it.
The same were passed on surreptitiously to LENS without the companysent of the respondent.
The said order is challenged in this appeal.
17.44 lakhs were due to respondent on account of the dues of appellant and LENS would pay it.
325 C of 2006 filed by the appellant seeking a direction to the respondent to provide decoders to the appellant and resume signals.
In fact in a letter dated 21.2.2002 written by Dharmendra Sikka as Director to LENS, he had admitted that Rs.
The said Dharmender Sikka floated a Company LENS and without the companysent of the respondent, shifted and transferred the decoders given by respondent to the appellant, to the said LENS a franchisee of Siti Cable , companytrolled by Dharmendra Sikka.
The respondent disconnected the signals to appellant as large amounts due to it had number been paid.
4 lakhs each issued towards the dues were dishonoured and large amounts were due by appellant to respondent.
Therefore, the respondent disconnected the signals with effect from 17.4.2002.
Ltd. for short LENS, a franchisee of Siti Cable Network Ltd. for short Siti Cable.
The appellant also failed to pay the subscription fee and other fees to respondent in spite of demands.
The appellant had shifted the said decoders supplied by the respondent to the premises of LENS.
