Delhi District Court
Saurabh Garg vs Shiv Valet Cabs And Services Pvt Ltd on 18 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL BENIWAL,
DISTRICT JUDGE-06, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS DJ No.4075/2024
CNR No.DLST01-011199-2024
1. Saurabh Garg
S/o Krishan Narain Garg
R/o D-48A, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi 110016.
[email protected] ....Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Shiv Valet Cabs & Services Pvt Ltd
U93090DL2011PTC226502
H. No.A-145/71-72, Flat No.9,
IInd Floor Gali No.1,
Krishnapuri Block,
Mandawali, New Delhi 110092.
Through its director Shiv Kumar Choudhary
DIN:03637034
[email protected]
2. Shiv Kumar Choudhary
R/o H. No.A-145/71-72, Flat No.9,
IInd Floor Gali No.1,
Krishnapuri Block,
Mandawali, New Delhi 110092.
also at:
319, 3rd Floor,
Vardhman Tower,
Commercial Complex, Preet Vihar,
Delhi 110085.
Mobile No.9999049888
[email protected]
Page 1 of 79
3.Mrs. Laxmi Choudhary
W/o Shiv Choudhary
R/o H. No.A-145/71-72, Flat No.9,
IInd Floor Gali No.1,
Krishnapuri Block,
Mandawali, New Delhi 110092.
also at:
319, 3rd Floor,
Vardhman Tower,
Commercial Complex, Preet Vihar,
Delhi 110085.
Mobile No.8882533355
[email protected]
4.Shiv Valet Parking Services LLC
Through Shiv Kumar Chaudhary
+971 52 849 9675
[email protected]
Dubai
802, Regal Tower,
Business Bay Dubai, .....Defendants
Date of Institution : 23.09.2024
Date of Judgment : 18.10.2025
Suit for declaration and recovery of damages amounting
Rs.27,40,000/-
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this judgment this Court shall strive to decide and dispose of the suit filed by the Plaintiff seeking declaration/ cancellation of documents, and damages of Rs 27,40,000/-, along with interest.
Page 2 of 79BRIEF FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF:
2. The plaintiff has filed the suit under disposal seeking declaration of documents and cancellation of documents executed by the plaintiff in regards to Defendant no.4 LLC as null and void, and damages due to the willful intentional mischievous and illegal acts of the defendants no. 1, 2 & 3.
3. The reliefs sought by the plaintiff are:
PRAYER:
(a) Pass a decree in the favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants no.1,2,3, & 4 thereby declaring all the documents i.e. various papers like as agreements and pre-formatted/ drafted letters pertaining to transfer of shareholding of 50% in "Shiv Valet Parking Services LLC" in plaintiff's name as well as deeds committed thereupon as null and void; and
(b) Pass a decree of Rs. 27,40,000(Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs and Forty Thousand), including the actual costs incurred along with compensation in the form of special, direct, compensatory and/or exemplary damages, in favor of the Plaintiff and against the defendants 1,2,3 & 4, Page 3 of 79
(c) Pass a decree awarding pendente lite and future interest @18 % per annum in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants herein,
(d) Award cost of the proceedings of the suit in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant; and
(e) Pass such further order(s) as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper as per the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
BRIEF FACTS
4. It has been pleaded by the plaintiff that:
5. The plaintiff and the defendants are known to each other through common friends and used to meet occasionally during certain social gatherings. During such gatherings, the defendants initiated the communications by representing themselves to be the Directors of Defendant no.1, and stake holders of Defendant no.4, and in the business of Valet Parking and cab services in various clubs, hotels and restaurants in India in the name and style of "Shiv Valet and Cab Services Pvt. Ltd.".
6. Thereafter, it was represented that the Defendants have their business not only limited to Delhi NCR region but also in Page 4 of 79 various cities in India as well as in foreign nations like Dubai/ UAE.
7. The Defendant No. 1 is a Body Corporate, being represented by its Director Mr Shiv Kumar Choudhary who is also impleaded as defendant no.2 separately, and is the husband of Defendant No. 3 and both the defendants reside, and also operate their business activity at and from the addresses as mentioned in the memo of Parties.
8. Defendant no.4 is a body corporate registered in Dubai, as per UAE laws, of which the plaintiff is a partner, being inducted by Defendants 2 & 3, by way of fraud, misrepresentation, coercion, and having 50% stake in the said LLC, based on signatures obtained under, including but not limited to, fraud, misrepresentation, coercion.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF:
Statement of Facts:
9. The plaintiff has stated the detailed facts underlying the present legal dispute, focusing on the conduct of the defendants in relation to business misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, and partnership issues concerning the entity known as "Shiv Valet Parking Services LLC" in Dubai, UAE.
Page 5 of 79Misrepresentation by Defendants
10. The plaintiff has averred that he was deliberately and deceitfully misrepresented by the defendants as having, managing, and operating a substantial and established business in India. The defendants further falsely claimed extensive business contacts in Dubai/UAE and an existing establishment in the Emirates. They asserted that their business could be rapidly expanded in Dubai/UAE, frequently assuring the plaintiff of their expertise in local legal and policy compliance.
11. These assertions were later revealed to be entirely false, designed solely to mislead the plaintiff and extract funds.
Proposal to Plaintiff and Initial Reluctance
12. The defendants represented to the plaintiff that they maintained numerous corporate associations eager to collaborate with them. They claimed to have incorporated "Shiv Valet Parking Services LLC" in Dubai/UAE. The defendants also stated that their limited English communication skills hindered their ability to interact with corporate clients and employees in Dubai/UAE.
13. For the execution and expansion of their Dubai business, the defendants stated that the aforementioned company was incorporated with a partner holding a 50% share. Due to alleged Page 6 of 79 personal issues, this partner purportedly resigned, relinquishing all rights and claims.
14. The defendants asserted that this resignation caused operational losses and necessitated the induction of a new partner, presenting themselves as absolute owners of the firm and its assets.
Induction into Dubai Entity
15. During meetings, the defendants proposed that the plaintiff join "Shiv Valet Parking Services LLC" as a partner. The plaintiff initially expressed reluctance, citing a lack of experience in valet parking and cab services, as well as unfamiliarity with Dubai/UAE laws and regulations.
16. It has been averred further that the defendants intentionally misrepresented that the plaintiff's role would be limited to signing formal documents, interacting with designated clients, and managing financial affairs, such as invoicing, employee payments, and asset maintenance. They repeatedly assured the plaintiff of their own operational experience and legal compliance in Dubai/UAE.
Financial Transactions and Expenses Page 7 of 79
17. To persuade the plaintiff to join, the defendants visited his residence and reiterated their claims in the presence of the plaintiff's parents. Business projections and profit estimates were provided, including promises to purchase a car for business purposes within a month and acquire residential and commercial properties within two to three months.
18. The defendants assured the plaintiff's family that all business activities would be conducted transparently and lawfully.
19. Subsequently, the plaintiff was induced to travel to Dubai with the defendants on June 26, 2024, under the pretense of completing partnership formalities and attending client meetings. Upon arrival, the defendants arranged for the plaintiff to sign various documents, which were represented as necessary for transferring a 50% shareholding.
20. The plaintiff and his father were also asked to transfer Rs. 50,000 to the defendant's account under the guise of a shortage of funds.
21. The plaintiff incurred significant expenses for visa charges, air travel, hotel accommodation, and other travel-related costs. Additional payments were demanded unexpectedly at the statutory office in Dubai, including Rs.77,184 and Rs.1,920, Page 8 of 79 without prior notice. The plaintiff was compelled to comply with these demands based on the defendants' repeated assurances.
False Promises and Business Projections
22. The defendants lured the plaintiff with numerous false representations, including facilitating conversations with individuals purportedly holding senior positions in client companies, such as a person named Bhim from "Aster." The plaintiff was led to believe that lucrative contracts and substantial earnings would result from these associations.
Transcripts of relevant audio calls corroborate these interactions and the collaborative efforts between the defendants and their associates.
Fraudulent Activities and Legal Implications
23. The plaintiff later discovered that he had been forcefully made a 50% partner in the Dubai entity, rendering him primarily responsible for all statutory, financial, contractual, and employment obligations under local law. Requests for access to banking transactions and management control were repeatedly ignored by the defendants.
Page 9 of 7924. It emerged that only two Emirates Cards could be issued for an LLC in Dubai. Both cards had already been issued--one to defendant no. 2 and the other to the erstwhile partner, valid until November 22, 2024.
25. The defendants concealed the fact that, without an Emirates Card, the plaintiff could not lawfully perform any business activities.
26. The defendants failed to provide the plaintiff with the necessary Emirates Card or bank details, instead requiring the plaintiff to pay AED 3,500 as a statutory fee for the card. Further, the defendants returned to India, leaving the plaintiff in Dubai without support, and began ignoring his communications. The plaintiff was made to stay at a different location, contrary to prior assurances of company accommodation.
27. The plaintiff raised objections to several suspicious activities, including the illegal hiring of foreign nationals without proper documentation, which could trigger significant penalties under Dubai law.
Meetings and Communications
28. It has been argued on behalf of the plaintiff that the audio transcripts and WhatsApp communications confirm the defendants' pattern of evasive and misleading behavior. The Page 10 of 79 plaintiff's attempts to resolve issues, including obtaining the Emirates Card and clarifying business operations, were met with procrastination and vague responses.
29. After returning to India, the plaintiff sought meetings with the defendants, who continued to evade him.
30. The plaintiff was also subjected to threats and intimidation by a representative of the defendants during a meeting arranged to discuss settlement and discharge from the Dubai entity. The representative threatened the plaintiff and his elderly parents with false legal action and financial liabilities.
Issues with Emirates Card and Banking Access
31. The plaintiff's repeated requests for issuance of an Emirates Card and access to banking details were met with delays and excuses. It was later confirmed that both allowable Emirates Cards were already issued, precluding the plaintiff from legitimate management or participation in the company.
32. The defendants' concealment of this fact and failure to facilitate lawful business operations constituted a clear breach of trust and contractual obligations.
Plaintiff's Stay and Defendants' Conduct Page 11 of 79
33. After being left in Dubai, the plaintiff incurred unnecessary costs by staying in various hotels. Despite multiple efforts, the plaintiff could not meet the defendants, who had fled back to India. The plaintiff realized he had been deceived when it became evident that the previous partner's Emirates Card had not been surrendered and the required visa cancellation had not occurred.
34. The defendants failed to provide the promised support and left the plaintiff vulnerable to misuse of his credentials.
Health Impact and Threats
35. The defendants' actions and subsequent false allegations against the plaintiff in client groups caused significant distress. The plaintiff suffered negative health effects, requiring medical treatment and strong medication for stress and anxiety. The threats made by the defendants and their representatives further exacerbated the plaintiff's mental anguish and sense of insecurity.
Legal Notice and Defendants' Replies
36. Due to the defendants' malicious conduct, the plaintiff was compelled to issue a legal notice dated July 26, 2024, demanding compliance with lawful terms. The defendants responded with Page 12 of 79 three contradictory replies--two dated August 10, 2024, and one dated August 11, 2024--each taking inconsistent positions and offering no substantive truth or resolution. The defendants have not complied with any of the lawful demands, and their evasive denials do not constitute valid legal responses.
Cause of Action and Jurisdiction
37. The cause of action arose when the defendants proposed the plaintiff's induction into the Dubai entity, arranged travel and formalities for partnership, and subsequently misrepresented key facts concerning ownership, compliance, and management. Further cause of action accrued through the defendants' failure to provide essential business documentation, their departure from Dubai, and the subsequent misleading and threatening communications.
38. Multiple meetings between the plaintiff and defendants took place at the plaintiff's residence in South Delhi, where the defendants presented false projections and documentation. As a result, the cause of action is within the territorial jurisdiction of the South District, New Delhi, conferring authority upon this Court to adjudicate the matter.
Valuation for Court Fee Page 13 of 79
39. For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, the present suit is valued at Rs. 27,40,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs and Forty Thousand only), and an ad valorem Court fee of Rs. 29,100/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand and One Hundred only) has been affixed accordingly.
40. The Local Commissioner was appointed by this Court qua the purpose of recording PE/DE. That the plaintiff evidence was conducted and plaintiff led only himself as one witness i.e., PW1 which was held on 19.11.2024, 03.12.2024 and 11.12.2024 .
41. The defendant evidence was conducted on 31.01.2025, 06.2.2025, 30.06.2025, 03.07.2025, 05.07.25, 02.08.2025 and 13.08.2025. the defendant led 2 witnesses i.e., Defendant no. 2 i.e. DW2 and Abhijeet Singh DW3.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE:
42. The plaintiff was examined as a witness on 19.11.2024, and was discharged on 11.12.2024. The plaintiff PW-1 was examined on three dates. PW-1 relied and exhibited the following documents:
EX.PW-1/1- True Copies of the agreements dated 28.06.2024.
EX.PW-1/2(Colly.)- True Copies of the air travel fair, hotel expenses, visa charges, etc. Page 14 of 79 EX.PW-1/3 (Colly.)- Pen drive containing audio recording and transcripts EX.PW-1/4 (Colly.)- True copies of whatsapp chats of 'Yara Jumeirah Group Dubai' and 'Aster Dubai Group'.
EX.PW-1/5 (Colly.)- True copy of the legal notice dated 26.07.2024 along with postal receipts.
EX.PW-1/6 (Colly.)- Reply to the legal notice, dated 10.08.2024 EX.PW-1/7 (Colly.)- Reply to the legal notice, dated 11.08.2024 EX.PW-1/8 (Colly.)- Communication between the plaintiff and the defendants before leaving for Dubai EX.PW-1/9 (Colly.)- Communication between the plaintiff and the defendants during plaintiff's stay in Dubai EX.PW-1/10 (Colly.)- Communication between the plaintiff and the defendants after leaving Dubai EX.PW-1/11- UAE/ Emirates identity card of Saurav Chawla, erstwhile partner of defendant no.4 EX.PW-1/12- Deposit slip of Rs 50,000/- made in favor of defendant no.1 EX.PW-1/13- Documents pertaining to Laxmi Choudhary (D3) EX.PW-1/14- Medical Documents pertaining to the plaintiff Page 15 of 79
43. No objections were raised on behalf of the defendants in regards to the exhibition of documents.
DEFENDANTS EVIDENCE
44. The DE commenced on 31.01.2025 and was closed on 13.08.2025. DE was conducted on seven (7) dates. The defendant no.2 examined himself and another witness Abhijeet Singh as DW-2 and DW-3.
45. The defendant no.2 (DW-2) placed reliance, and exhibited/ marked the below mentioned documents:
EX.DW-2/A- MOU executed between the parties EX.DW-2/B1- Copies of travelling fare, hotel expenses, renewal of agreement, penalties.
EX.DW-2/C- Reply dated 10.08.2024 sent by Defendant no.2 EX.DW-2/D- Reply dated 10.08.2024 sent by Defendant no.3 EX.DW-2/E and EX.DW-2/F- Postal Receipts dated 16.08.2024 EX.DW-2/G- Employment letter of Ravikant Bihari Subodh Bihari Singh issued by defendant company EX.DW-2/H- Payment Receipt for Rs 36,000/- sent to Neha Garg EX.DW-2/I- Payment Receipt for Rs 15,000/- sent to the plaintiff Page 16 of 79
46. Objections were taken by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff stating that the exhibits EX DW-2/A, EX DW-2/B1, EX DW-2/G, EX DW-2/H, EX DW-2/I cannot be exhibited as the same are photocopies. Hence the same should have been marked.
47. It has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff-PW1 has proven the averments in the plaint through his testimony in the witness box, corroborated by the relevant documents submitted on record, thereby establishing the facts and claims made in the Plaint.
SUBMISSIONS AND ARGUMENTS OF THE PLAINTIFF
48. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted as follows-
49. Defendant No. 2 (DW2) gave contradictory statements between his examination-in-chief and cross-examination conducted on different dates.
50. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff attached a table showing the issue-wise contradictions made by Defendant No. 2 (DW2) between his examination-in-chief and cross-examination.
1. ISSUE: Visitation To Dubai and allurement of Business Page 17 of 79 Examination in chief: Cross Examination Cross Examination:
Para 4,7 06/02/2025
03/07/2025
Plaintiff after Pg 9 Q1
knowing the goodwill Pg 6 para 5
It is correct that neither
of the defendants in
the plaintiff and his It is incorrect to
trade of timely and
family members were suggest that prior
sincere services
having any business to our visit to
rendered by the
similar to profile of D1 Dubai, along with Defendants, plaintiff and D4 plaintiff, I had approached the provided business defendants to join projection to business as a partner plaintiff in respect in Dubai to business of D4.
Plaintiff was
spending time
with me for
almost 6 months
prior to our visit
to Dubai and
expressed his
desire to join D4
Pg 7
Confronted with
Pg 177-222 (chats
between plaintiff
Page 18 of 79
and D2): admitted
by D2 which
shows allurement
of business being
made to plaintiff
51. It has been further submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that in his examination-in-chief, DW2 claimed that the plaintiff approached the defendants to join the Dubai business after knowing their goodwill. However, in cross- examination(06/02/2025), DW2 admitted that the plaintiff and his family had no similar business background.
52. Later, on 03/07/2025, DW2 denied giving business projections but admitted chats (Pg 177-222 of the suit) showing that he had enticed the plaintiff with business opportunities, revealing clear contradictions.
2. ISSUE: Statutory fees regarding induction as a partner Examination in chief : Cross Examination 30.06.25 Para 7 Pg 4 para 5 Page 19 of 79 Plaintiff never paid the amount Cannot tell whether plaintiff which was actually payable by the deposited 6190 AED as statutory Plaintiff as per the memorandum as fees in Dubai towards inducting well as agreement himself as partner On confrontation with receipt vouchers Ex PW1 Pg 54 and 56 Witness states "I am not aware of these receipt vouchers"
Contradiction:
Next page (5) para 2 It is correct that the said payments to TMC Global (Pgs 54-56) were paid by the plaintiff and the receipts are at Pg 55-57
53. DW2 initially claimed the plaintiff never paid the statutory fees (Examination-in-Chief, Para 7), but in cross-examination (30.06.2025), he admitted the plaintiff had paid 6,190 AED, as confirmed by the receipts (Ex. PW1, Pgs. 54-57), showing a clear contradiction.Page 20 of 79
3. ISSUE: Loan amount given to Plaintiff and his sister Examination in chief : Cross Examination Para 8 05/07/2025 Defendant send a friendly It is Incorrect to suggest that I have assistance/loan of Rs 36000 in given 15000 to plaintiff as loan account of Neha Garg who is sister /friendly assistance. of plaintiff and also gave 15000 as financial assistance/loan to the plaintiff online
54. In examination-in-chief (Para 8), DW2 admitted giving Rs. 36,000 to Neha Garg and Rs. 15,000 to the plaintiff as financial assistance. However, in cross-examination on 05.07.2025, he denied giving Rs. 15,000 to the plaintiff, creating a clear contradiction.
4. ISSUE: Dubai travel date Cross Examination: Cross Examination:
06/02/25 30/06/25
Pg 9 Pg 4
Page 21 of 79
On 26/6/24, I along with D3 and I cannot tell the date whether on Plaintiff travelled to Dubai for the 26/6/24, I along with D3 and purpose of inducting me and Plaintiff travelled to Dubai plaintiff as partners in D4
55. DW2 first admitted in cross-examination on 06.02.2025 that D2, D3, and the plaintiff travelled to Dubai on 26.06.2024 for induction as partners in D4. However, in cross-examination on 30.06.2025 (Pg 4), he claimed that he could not confirm the travel date, showing inconsistency in his testimony.
5. ISSUE: Plaintiff Emirates card application Examination in chief: Cross Examination:
Para 11 3/7/25
I say that 2 emirates card Pg 5
issued by the authorities in
Immediately after association in D4,
which one card for
emirates card was applied in name of
erstwhile partner was
plaintiff
cancelled but there is the
procedure and time limit Referred to Pg 73 of WS for the same validity but Pg 5 para 3 the unfortunate part is the plaintiff could not have Correct that said document does not have Page 22 of 79 patience name of plaintiff I can bring docs on record No documents filed till date Para 5 It is correct that I have not filed any document pertaining to applying the emirates card in name of plaintiff Pg 6 contradiction to 6/2/24 deposition
56. In examination-in-chief (Para 11), DW2 claimed that one Emirates card for the erstwhile partner was cancelled, but the plaintiff was impatient.
57. However, in cross-examination on 03.07.2025, he contradicted himself by stating that the Emirates card was applied in the plaintiff's name immediately after association, yet admitted that no documents were filed to prove this, and later admitted that they have not filed any documents pertaining to applying the emirates card in name of plaintiff, directly contradicting his earlier deposition.
Page 23 of 796. ISSUE: Cancellation of Emirates Card of Saurav Chawla (erstwhile partner) Examination in chief: Cross Examination:
Para 11 6/2/25 I say that 2 emirates card In 2023, at time of renewal of D4 the emirates issued by the authorities in card of Saurav Chawla was not renewed which one card for erstwhile partner was cancelled Pg 7 Issued in month of Nov 2022 Emirates card issued to Saurav was valid upto 23/11/24 Saurav Chawla not surrendered at time of resignation No new card will be issued to new partner till the expiry of existing partner I have spoken to Saurav Chawla qua surrendering emirates card but he refused by saying card will expire said date of expiry Page 24 of 79
58. In examination-in-chief (Para 11), DW2 claimed that one Emirates card for the erstwhile partner was cancelled. However, in cross-examination on 06.02.2025, he admitted that Saurav Chawla's (erstwhile partner of D4) card, issued in Nov 2022, remained valid until 23.11.2024 and was not surrendered at resignation, meaning no new card could be issued to the plaintiff until expiry.
59. In cross-examination on 30.06.2025, he further admitted that he did not inform the plaintiff about the existing card in name of erstwhile partner.
7. ISSUE: Plaintiff's stay arrangement 1-7 July Cross Examination: Cross Examination:
30/06/25 03/07/25 Pg 8 Para 4 Pg 3 para 3 From 01/07/24 till 7/07/2024, From 01/07/24 till 7/07/2024, I
Plaintiff stayed at Abhijeet house resided at different hotels and kept where Arrangement of car/travel the plaintiff with me made by me Pg 9 Respective expenses during dubai It is incorrect that since 1/7 till 7/7 trip were spent and borne by Page 25 of 79 Plaintiff resided separately in respective parties on their own. I separate hotel or self arranged his have incurred qua the lodging food accommodation food logistics car travel in respect of plaintiff
60. DW2 gave conflicting statements regarding the plaintiff's stay in Dubai. On 30.06.2025, he claimed the plaintiff stayed at Abhijeet's (DW3) house with car and travel arrangements made by him, denying that the plaintiff arranged accommodation or food himself.
61. However, on 03.07.2025, DW2 contradicted himself, stating that he stayed at different hotels and kept the plaintiff with him, and that all expenses for lodging, food, and travel were borne individually, revealing inconsistency in his testimony.
8. ISSUE: Expenses of Dubai trip/ Plaintiff cooking at DW3 Abhijeet's house Cross Examination 30/06/25: Cross Examination 30/06/25 Pg 6 Contradiction : Pg 7 Not aware whether or not It is correct that photographs of plaintiff purchased food cooking food at Abhijeet house items/groceries and prepared the on 28.06.24 were sent by Page 26 of 79 same on his own during his stay Plaintiff to me over whatsapp at friends house which are matter of record.
62. DW2 contradicted himself on 30.06.2025 regarding the plaintiff's food arrangements. On Pg 6 of the evidence affidavit, he claimed he was unaware whether the plaintiff purchased groceries and cooked on his own. Yet on Pg 7 of the affidavit, DW2 admitted receiving photographs from the plaintiff showing him cooking at DW3 Abhijeet's house on 28.06.2024, confirming the plaintiff prepared his own meals.
9. ISSUE: Return to India timing Cross Examination Cross Examination 06/02/2025 30/06/25 Pg 9 last Pg 8 I and D3 returned back to when my wife D3 returned back to India together after 12-13 India, plaintiff stayed with me days Page 27 of 79 Pg 10 Pg 9 It is incorrect to say I My wife, after executing the returned to India prior to documents returned to India plaintiff Plaintiff stayed with me for 2-3 days D3 returned back to India before left for India prior to me and plaintiff D3 wife returned to India within 2-4 days on coming to Dubai immediately after execution of statutory docs
63. It has been argued that DW2 gave contradictory statements regarding return to India and the plaintiff's stay. On 06.02.2025 he claimed that D2 and D3 returned together after 12-13 days, denying he returned before the plaintiff. On 30.06.2025, he admitted the plaintiff stayed with him for 2-3 days after D3 left.
64. On 03.07.2025, he contradicted both statements, claiming he resided at different hotels from 01/07/2024 to 07/07/2024 and kept the plaintiff with him, showing inconsistency in his testimony.
Page 28 of 7910.ISSUE: Communication made to WP Groups/Hacking email id allegations Examination in chief : Cross Examination para 12 05/07/2025 Plaintiff used/handled the email Pg 4 id as well the Whatsapp of D3 It is correct that such and spread the false messages communication had take place towards esteemed among above said members .
clients/customers regularly and The messages sent from my caused huge losses to defendants number were typed and forwarded by the Plaintiff I have mentioned in my WS in reply to para 22-26 of the plaint at page 12 about sending of messages to the YARA Jumeirah Group, by the plaintiff The same page 12 of WS was the false contention about hacking and use of email ID of D3 Page 29 of 79
65. In examination-in-chief (Para 12), DW2 alleged that the plaintiff hacked and used D3's email and WhatsApp to send false messages causing losses. However, in cross-examination on 05.07.2025, he admitted that the messages were sent by the plaintiff from his own number and that his earlier claim of hacking and misuse of D3's accounts, as stated in the WS, was false, exposing the falsity of his allegations.
11.ISSUE: About the Meeting after returning from Dubai Cross Examination Cross Examination 05/07/2025 05/07/2025 Pg 7 Pg 7 last para I am not aware as to what talks It is incorrect to suggest that had taken place during the said there is no chance of my meeting unawareness about the discussions which had taken place during the said meeting as my friend Gaurav as well as my Representative anil purohit were there, hence the question of not informing me about the said discussions by them is not Page 30 of 79 possible.
66. DW2 gave contradictory statements regarding a post- Dubai meeting. On 05.07.2025, he claimed he was unaware of the discussions that took place. Yet, later on the same page, he admitted it was impossible for him to be unaware since his friend Gaurav and his representative Anil Purohit were present, exposing inconsistency in his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DW3
67. DW3 firstly states that he is not aware where EX.DW-3/A was prepared and by whom.
68. Details of the deposition made by the DW3 in cross examination dated 13/08/25:
DW3 states that plaintiff resided at his apartment for 6-7 days but again said that the plaintiff stayed at his residence for confirmed period of 3 nights. Then upon being confronted with the date as to travelling of DW3 to India, DW3 states that it is possible that he travelled to INDIA on 01.07.2024 and the plaintiff left the apartment on 01.07.2024.Page 31 of 79
DW3 states that having Emirates card for doing business in Dubai is mandatory.
It is admitted by the DW3 that plaintiff paid the bills for drinks and meals while they went for outing at clubs and watched cricket match.
It is stated by DW3 that he has not levelled any allegation upon the plaintiff with respect to hacking of phone, email of DW3 by the plaintiff which he has stated in Examination in chief. It was Further stated that he has no knowledge of said hacking and it was told to him by D2.
He stated that allegations deposed by DW3 in EX.DW3/A were told to him by D2 and hence he made the following statements.
He further concluded that he became the witness only to state that the plaintiff stayed at his apartment in DUBAI for some days and no other statements regarding hacking is personally witnessed by him.
It has been argued on behalf of the plaintiff if a contract was signed in the UAE but the recitals, terms and conditions, objective is being decided in India, and the contract was entered into based on misrepresentation or fraud, the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides clear remedies for the aggrieved party. The relevant law is Page 32 of 79 Sections 17 and 18 (fraud and misrepresentation), and Section 19 addresses the remedies.
Remedies Under Indian Law
69. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that:
The aggrieved party has the right to rescind (cancel) the contract if consent was obtained through misrepresentation or fraud. This makes the contract voidable at their option.
The party seeking cancellation can also claim compensation for any loss suffered due to the misrepresentation or fraud.
The person may alternatively insist on the performance of the contract as if the representation had been true.
Indian law aims to restore the parties to their pre-contract situation as much as possible (status quo ante).
Jurisdiction and Application Page 33 of 79 If the contract stipulates application of Indian law or if Indian courts have jurisdiction, the remedies outlined above would apply, regardless of where the contract was signed.
The respective Governments/ administrations Republic Of India and The UAE also have a treaty of respecting/ reciprocating the jurisdiction/ territory of the respective nations, and the Emirates. Foundation of reciprocity of jurisdiction is as per S.13 CPC, 1908, thereby enabling the rule of the law of India, in respect of agreements and documents pertaining to the UAE.
It is also submitted that all the parties concerned are Indian nationals, and residents of Delhi. None of the contesting parties have a valid Business Visa in respect of UAE.
It is also submitted that elements, terms and conditions of the business venture were all proposed, discussed, and finalized at the residence of the plaintiff ie Hauz Khas.
The relevant bookings, plan of action, scope of work, travel plans, itinerary etc were all decided at the residence of the plaintiff, and booked by the respective persons accordingly.
The acts of the plaintiff and defendants no. 1 to 3 to Travel to UAE, and execute documents were all based on the Page 34 of 79 agreement, plans of action, scope of work, discussions, terms and conditions as were decided between the parties in Delhi, more particularly at the residence of the plaintiff.
It has been argued vehemently by the plaintiff that If there is no jurisdiction clause, the Ld. Courts are required to consider factors such as where the contract was signed, where the fraudulent act occurred, and where the harm was sustained to determine jurisdiction. Indian courts may exercise jurisdiction if the fraud or misrepresentation has a significant nexus to India.
That, it is an admitted fact that the defendant no.1 being represented through defendant no.2 visited the residence of the plaintiff on more than one occasion prior to filing of the suit.
That, it is stressed that the defendants cannot be allowed to aprobate and reprobate, blow hot and cold in the same breath challenging the jurisdiction of this Court while they themselves have filed a suit against the plaintiff in the very same Court titled as 'M/s Shiv Valet Cabs & Services Pvt Ltd Vs Saurab Garg' CS DJ 616/2025, which is pending before the very same Ld. Court, and is fixed for 15.11.2025.Page 35 of 79
The plaintiff has placed reliance on the judgment of The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in TransAsia Capital Vs Gaurav Dhawan EX. P 37/2021, wherein;
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has established that in the absence of evidence proving the applicability of a foreign law identified as the 'proper law of the contract', Indian law will be applied as the default jurisdiction. This decision empowers Indian courts to apply Indian law by 'default' in adjudicating international civil and commercial disputes, even in instances where an explicit governing law has been selected by the parties, unless there is a clear insistence on applying the law of a specified country.
This approach aligns with the adversarial system common to most common law jurisdictions, where courts are not expected to determine the applicable law proactively. Instead, the legal representatives must argue and prove the content of foreign law. (copy filed).
The Ld. Counsel has reproduced S.20 CPC, in his written submissions "S. 20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of, action arises .-
Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-
Page 36 of 79(a)the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or
(b)any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c)the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."
The Ld. Counsel has pressed that no document has been brought on the record of the Ld. Court establishing 'exclusive' jurisdiction of UAE.
The parties, in the absence of any such document/ recital/ clause, are automatically subject to the Laws of India, being Indian Nationals, and residing in India.
The Ld. Court has the power to declare the documents as null and void, and grant damages. The decree passed can be executed by the parties in UAE, as UAE is a reciprocating territory.
Page 37 of 79 The Ld. Counsel has also argued that the Plaintiff is also entitled to Rs 1,00,000/- as damages, per month w.e.f. July 2024 till the time of passing of the judgment and decree.
Judgement, invoice of the Ld. Counsel, and another document has been filed along with the written submissions.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS (DEFENDANT NO.2)
70. It has been argued on behalf of the defendant as follows.
71. That the present suit is false and fabricated, based on untrue facts narrated by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has failed to place on record any documents or prove his case or liability against the defendants regarding the claims for declaration, damages, and recovery. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form and merits dismissal.
72. It has been submitted that it is clear from the pleadings that the suit is a gross abuse and misuse of the legal process, filed without any cause of action in favor of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as it does not disclose any cause of action against the answering defendants.
Page 38 of 7973. The plaintiff, in his cross-examination dated 03/12/2024, admitted that penalty charges and other expenses were paid by Shiv Choudhary. When defendants requested the plaintiff to pay 50% of the expenditure incurred, the plaintiff avoided or declined payment on various pretexts.
74. Being a partner, the plaintiff was liable to share these expenses, but presumed that all costs would be borne by the defendants while the plaintiff would enjoy the trip without any financial contribution.
75. It is submitted that the plaintiff, aware of the defendants' goodwill and timely services to esteemed clients, approached the defendants to join the business as a partner in Dubai, representing himself as having perfect business skills and fluency in English and other languages.
76. The company, registered under the Companies Act as Shiv Valet & Parking Services LLC, supplies manpower associated with the hotel industry and provides parking and taxi services. Defendants Shiv Kumar Choudhary and Laxmi Choudhary are directors managing the day-to-day operations.
77. It has been argued that the suit is not maintainable in India as all alleged transactions and partnership agreements occurred in Dubai/UAE. Nothing relevant happened in India, and this lack of jurisdiction alone merits dismissal under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Page 39 of 7978. The plaintiff admitted in cross-examination that Defendant No. 1 was impleaded primarily to maintain the suit in India, though the main cause of action pertains to a Dubai entity (Defendant No. 4). Defendant No. 1 has no direct connection with the agreement or business transactions.
79. The reality is that this is a case of the plaintiff attempting to escape liability for 50% of the expenditure after becoming a partner. The plaintiff was aware from the beginning that initial expenses in Dubai would be high and would have to be borne by him as a 50% partner. The plaintiff fabricated these falsehoods to sustain his claim.
80. The plaintiff's conduct since day one shows a mindset to record every interaction via video, WhatsApp chats, and voice recordings, reflecting his character and intentions.
81. Defendant Shiv Kumar Chaudhary has also filed a suit for declaration and recovery titled "Shiv Valet Cabs & Services Pvt Ltd Vs. Saurabh Garg," before this very Court for which summons have been issued.
82. It has further been submitted that t he plaintiff signed all the papers related to the agreement after reading and understanding them before the PRO. It is impossible for the plaintiff to have signed documents without reading, especially as he was the one recording all events since expressing interest in Page 40 of 79 partnership. However, the plaintiff avoided paying his share of expenses.
83. The plaintiff inconsistently claims the erstwhile partner's Emirates Card was not cancelled, yet in cross-examination, claims ignorance about the partner's identity. The plaintiff also admitted it is possible to induct another partner without removing the existing one.
84. It has been argued that the plaintiff and his sister received loans from Defendant Shiv Choudhary (Rs. 36,000 to the sister and Rs. 15,000 to the plaintiff) during their Dubai trip, which have not been re-imbursed. The plaintiff offered unsatisfactory explanations for the handling of these funds.
85. The plaintiff submitted photocopies, not original bills of hotel stays and other expenses, without examining witnesses to prove these claims. The defendant has placed original bills to rebut.
86. The plaintiff admitted in his cross-examination that he habitually avoided bearing 50% of expenses, expecting to be a partner for free, even though he bore induction expenses.
87. The plaintiff objected to hiring two Pakistani nationals, claiming ignorance and refusal to bear related costs, indicating his unwillingness to share partnership liabilities.
Page 41 of 7988. The plaintiff stayed at a friend's (Abhijeet Singh) residence in Dubai without paying for accommodation or travel, while Abhijeet was paid Rs. 1,50,000 by the defendant.
89. The plaintiff reportedly hacked the email and WhatsApp account of Defendant No. 3 and spread false messages to clients, causing financial loss to the defendants.
90. Emirates Card procedures take time for validity and cancellation; the plaintiff was impatient and unwilling to fulfill his financial obligations as partner.
91. The present suit suffers from misjoinder; Defendant No. 1 had no involvement in the alleged business matters, making the suit against him an abuse of process.
92. The defendants deny all allegations of intentional misrepresentation, fraud, and cheating made by the plaintiff.
93. The defendants assert that the plaintiff himself approached them seeking partnership and was aware of the business and associated expenses.
94. It has been contended that the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable, is an abuse of process, and that there is no valid cause of action in his favor.
95. The defendants admit incorporation of the Dubai entity and existence of a prior partner who resigned but deny misrepresenting the plaintiff or coercing him into a partnership.
Page 42 of 7996. The defendants assert that the plaintiff visited Dubai voluntarily, with knowledge of the business formalities, and deny that they concealed the status of Emirates Cards or financial details. It has been claimed that the plaintiff was informed and participated knowingly.
97. The defendants rebut the claim of illegal hiring and deny misuse of the plaintiff's credentials, instead alleging the plaintiff caused financial losses by spreading false messages.
98. Defendants admit certain financial transactions to and from the plaintiff's family but deny any fraudulent intent and state the plaintiff failed to reimburse those amounts.
99. The defendants also deny the alleged threats and intimidation through their representative and argue that the plaintiff's claims of mental distress are fabricated.
100. The written statement argues for dismissal of the suit on grounds of no cause of action, misjoinder of parties, and inaccurate allegations with contradictory legal defenses in plaintiff's pleadings.
101. The defendants' written statement presents a categorical denial of all fraud claims, emphasizing that the plaintiff voluntarily engaged with the business, was informed of obligations, and participated in decisions related to shareholding Page 43 of 79 and expenses. The suit has been characterized as vexatious, without merit.
102. The opposition by the defendants establishes the prima facie dispute over factual events, contractual obligations, and alleged misrepresentations in the business dealings of the Dubai entity.
103. The defendants, in their written statement, vehemently deny all allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, and coercion made by the plaintiff regarding the Dubai entity "Shiv Valet Parking Services LLC."
104. They contend that the plaintiff voluntarily approached them for partnership, was aware of the business and expenses, and participated voluntarily in the formalities. Defendants argue that the suit is an abuse of process with no valid cause of action and seek dismissal.
105. They admit the existence of the Dubai LLC and prior partner but deny any concealment about Emirates Cards or financial details. They reject accusations of illegal hiring and misuse of credentials, alleging instead that the plaintiff spread false information causing losses. Financial transactions between parties are acknowledged but framed as loans or assistance, not fraud.
Page 44 of 79106. The defendants also dispute the claims of threats or mental distress and counter that many of the plaintiff's claims are fabricated or misleading. Overall, the defendants portray the plaintiff as a willing participant who misunderstood or failed to fulfill obligations, framing the suit as frivolous and without merit.
107. This sets a clear factual and legal conflict between the parties concerning the Dubai partnership and business dealings, with defendants seeking dismissal and plaintiff claiming deliberate cheating and misrepresentation.
108. The dispute centers on a partnership agreement between Saurabh Garg and Shiv Valet Cab Services Private Ltd concerning business operations in Dubai, UAE. The plaintiff alleges various liabilities and claims damages and a declaration against the defendants, who refute his claims and argue that the suit is based on false facts and is an abuse of court process.
109. The defendants maintain that the suit was filed without any valid cause of action, and highlight procedural improprieties in the suit, most notably the lack of jurisdiction for the Indian courts since all significant transactions and partnership undertakings transpired in Dubai.
110. Defendants' Core Arguments Page 45 of 79 The defendants assert that the present suit is fabricated and devoid of merit, citing the plaintiff's failure to provide substantive evidence or documentation to prove his claims.
The suit, according to the defendants, should be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for failing to disclose a proper cause of action.
The plaintiff allegedly avoided paying his share (50%) of the business expenditures, expecting the defendants to cover all costs. This is substantiated by cross-examination admissions.
Defendants state that the plaintiff approached them to join a Dubai-based business and signed all partnership agreements after due understanding.
The defendants argue that Indian courts do not have jurisdiction because all the business activities, finances, and agreements occurred in Dubai.
Defendant Shiv Kumar Chaudhary has initiated a counter- suit in the same matter for recovery of amounts and declaration, highlighting mutual legal claims.
Financial Transactions and Conduct The defendants claim that they provided the plaintiff and his sister with financial loans (₹36,000 to Neha Garg and Page 46 of 79 ₹15,000 to Saurabh Garg) for travel and setup costs in Dubai. These amounts have allegedly not been reimbursed by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff is accused of recording conversations, both video and chat, reflecting a lack of trust and questionable conduct.
Allegations are also made regarding the plaintiff's misuse of confidential email and WhatsApp accounts resulting in reputational and financial loss to the company.
The plaintiff did not bear stipulated partnership expenditure, even when confronted during cross-examination. The plaintiff instead claims his expense was for getting inducted as a partner.
Jurisdictional and Procedural Challenges Defendants strongly contest the jurisdiction of the Indian Courts, asserting that all partnership activities, documentation, and disputes originate and must be resolved in Dubai under UAE law.
The plaintiff is alleged to have added Shiv Valet Cab Services Private Ltd as a defendant only to justify the filing in India, without substantive business involvement or cause.
Page 47 of 79 The defendants explain the removal and induction of various partners in the Dubai entity, clarifying that standard procedures were followed for compliance as per UAE partnership norms.
Arguments on Evidence and Locus Standi Defendants criticize the plaintiff's submission of photocopies (not originals) of bills related to hotel and other expenses, disputing their authenticity.
The plaintiff did not call witnesses to corroborate his expense claims, while the defendants claim to have incurred more expenditure than stated by the plaintiff.
They contend that the plaintiff lacks locus standi for instituting the suit in India, given the absence of liability, cause of action in India, and proper documentation.
The suit is also challenged for misjoinder of parties, with Defendant No.1 claimed to have no direct involvement in the disputed business agreement.
Key Defendant Counterclaims Page 48 of 79 Alleging breach of partnership terms, the defendants seek dismissal of the plaintiff's suit as frivolous and vexatious, with costs awarded to them.
The defendants have reserved their rights for counterclaims and have already instituted parallel legal proceedings against the plaintiff for recovery of amounts owed and other damages.
There are further references to failed cooperation by the plaintiff in hiring foreign nationals and arranging necessary documentation for business growth in Dubai, which exacerbated the partnership breakdown.
It is observed that that no WS/defence has been filed on behalf of Defendants no.1, 3 & 4.
OBSERVATIONS & REASONING
111. The present suit involves intricate cross-border legal considerations, encompassing substantial disputes regarding payment obligations, procedural irregularities, jurisdictional competence, authenticity of documentary evidence, and professional propriety in the course of partnership induction.
112. Both parties have instituted independent legal proceedings in parallel jurisdictions, underscoring the depth and complexity Page 49 of 79 of the business and personal disagreements arising from their Dubai enterprise.
113. The defendants firmly contend that the plaintiff's suit merits dismissal on grounds of lack of territorial and subject- matter jurisdiction, evasive conduct concerning partnership expenditures, insufficiency of supporting documentation, and the improper inclusion of parties. In support of their submissions, the defendants rely upon the admissions elicited during cross- examination, corroborative financial records, and other documentary materials. Simultaneously, they are pursuing parallel legal remedies before appropriate fora, thereby reinforcing their stated position and defense.
114. The suit also features complex cross-border legal issues, with substantial disputes over payment obligations, procedural irregularities, jurisdiction, documentary proof, and professional conduct during partnership induction.
115. This case involves a civil suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for fraud, cheating, and misrepresentation relating to the business entity "Shiv Valet Parking Services LLC" purportedly operating in Dubai, UAE. The core allegations are summarized as follows:
116. The defendants falsely represented to the plaintiff that they owned and operated a successful valet parking business in India Page 50 of 79 and the UAE, with strong business contacts and legal compliance knowledge in Dubai.
117. Believing these representations, the plaintiff was induced to join their Dubai-based company, "Shiv Valet Parking Services LLC," as a 50% partner and was persuaded to travel to Dubai in June 2024 to complete formalities.
118. The defendants arranged for the plaintiff to sign various documents and pay sums of money on false assurances that his shareholding and rights were being formalized. The plaintiff spent substantial amounts on visa, travel, hotel, and statutory expenses, including ₹50,000/- transferred to the defendants and AED 3,500 for an Emirates Card.
119. Upon arrival in Dubai, the plaintiff realized that the defendants had concealed significant facts, including that the earlier partner's Emirates Card and shareholding were still valid, preventing lawful induction of the plaintiff.
120. The defendants failed to provide bank details, Emirates Card, or managerial access, while continuing to use the plaintiff's name and credentials. They also allegedly hired foreign workers illegally, putting the plaintiff at potential legal risk.
121. The plaintiff was ultimately abandoned in Dubai without support; defendants returned to India on July 2, 2024. The Page 51 of 79 plaintiff returned to India on July 7, 2024 after incurring heavy losses and emotional distress.
122. The defendants then sent contradictory replies (dated 10.08.2024 and 11.08.2024) to the plaintiff's legal notice dated 26.07.2024, each containing inconsistent narratives, confirming their malafide intent.
123. A subsequent threatening incident occurred on 25 July 2024, when the plaintiff met the defendants' representative, Mr. Anil Purohit, who allegedly threatened the plaintiff and his elderly parents against taking legal action.
124. The plaintiff claims mental harassment, financial loss, and ongoing fear of misuse of his credentials in Dubai.
125. The cause of action is stated to have arisen in New Delhi, where the false representations were made, giving jurisdiction to the South District Court, New Delhi.
126. In essence, the plaintiff contends that the defendants engaged in a calculated fraud by enticing him into a false partnership under fabricated business pretences, causing significant financial and mental suffering.
127. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants intentionally misrepresented their business credentials and prospects in India and Dubai, luring the plaintiff into joining "Shiv Valet Parking Services LLC" in Dubai as a partner. The defendants claimed to Page 52 of 79 have an established business, influential contacts, and expertise in Dubai's legal and business environment, which later proved false.
128. The plaintiff was induced to travel to Dubai, invest money, and sign partnership documents based on these assurances. However, after becoming a partner, the plaintiff was denied access to essential business documents, bank details, and the promised Emirates ID, while incurring significant expenses. The defendants allegedly avoided further contact, issued contradictory replies to legal notices, and threatened the plaintiff and his family. The plaintiff claims to have suffered financial loss, stress, and reputational harm, and seeks to be discharged from all liabilities related to the Dubai entity, along with reimbursement of incurred expenses.
Case Background and Plaintiff's Claims Plaintiff and defendants met through common connections; defendants represented themselves as owners of a valet parking and cab business operational in India and Dubai (Defendant No. 4 is the Dubai entity).
The plaintiff was assured by Defendant No. 2 about lucrative business opportunities in Dubai and was offered a 50% share in the Dubai company, replacing a previous partner who resigned.
Page 53 of 79 Plaintiff traveled to Dubai to formalize the partnership and signed various documents inducting him as a 50% partner based on assurances given in India.
The plaintiff paid significant amounts for visa, travel, hotel, statutory fees, and was led to believe he would have operational control.
Critical to the plaintiff's claim is that defendants concealed the existence and validity of UAE Emirates Cards (required for official business), which were held by the erstwhile partner and Defendant No. 3, and did not apply for a new card in the plaintiff's name.
After induction, the plaintiff was allegedly isolated, left alone in Dubai, bore all expenses himself, and was unable to conduct any business due to lack of an Emirates Card.
Defendant No. 2 and 3 reportedly returned to India leaving the plaintiff stranded, causing mental agony and financial loss.
Plaintiff claims misrepresentation, concealment of material facts, and illegal activities by defendants, including hiring illegal workers without consent.
Plaintiff suffered harassment and threats after returning to India.
Page 54 of 79 The plaintiff seeks the contract and related agreements to be declared null and void and claims damages of Rs 27,40,000 plus interest.
Defendants' Response (DW2) in brief Admits to incorporating the Dubai company and previous partner's resignation.
Admit plaintiff signed documents and visited Dubai statutory offices.
Deny fraud or misrepresentation, asserting plaintiff was aware of business status and visa.
Claim plaintiff agreed to bear the expenses but failed to pay adequately.
Argue that Emirates Cards for the plaintiff and previous partner were in process, and delays were procedural.
Deny allegations of abandoning the plaintiff, asserting managing expenses for 7 days.
Allegations that plaintiff hacked emails and spread false messages are denied or unproven.
Deny misconduct, calling plaintiff's claims a litigation tactic and argue plaintiff voluntarily joined the business.
Page 55 of 79Observations in regards to the Evidence and Witnesses Plaintiff testified alone as PW1, corroborating claims with receipts, WhatsApp chats, audio recordings, and medical records.
Defendant No. 2 (DW2) and another witness (DW3) provided contradictory statements on key facts such as travel dates, expenses, Emirates Card applications, and business conduct.
Cross-examination revealed numerous contradictions in DW2's testimony, undermining defense credibility.
Evidence shows plaintiffs paid statutory fees and bore certain expenses, contradicting the defense's denial of payment.
Audio and chat evidence substantiate plaintiff's claims of deception and harassment which remained unrebutted.
Climate of mistrust after plaintiff's return includes threats from defendants' representatives.
Legal Arguments Presented Page 56 of 79 Plaintiff's submissions focus on Sections 17 and 18 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 concerning fraud and misrepresentation leading to voidable contracts.
Plaintiff argues inducement through fraudulent assurances and concealment makes the partnership agreement null and void.
Demand for damages is based on expenses incurred and mental trauma suffered due to defendants' deliberate malafide conduct.
Defendants rely on statutory compliance, procedural correctness, and deny any fraudulent behavior.
Discrepancies and contradictions in defense evidence weaken their position.
Analysis The facts, circumstances, evidence, pleadings and the arguments of the parties incline this Court to observe that;
The plaintiff presents a detailed, coherent narrative supported by documentary and testimonial evidence, consistent throughout his testimony.
Page 57 of 79 There are significant contradictions in defendants' evidence, particularly DW2's shifting claims about travel, payments, and Emirates Card status, raise questions on their reliability.
The failure of defendants to produce evidence that the Emirates Card was applied for in the plaintiff's name, when required for conducting business legally in Dubai, is a notable lapse favoring plaintiff's position.
The plaintiff's isolation, financial burden, and mental distress while left in Dubai, along with threats post-return, add weight to claims of fraudulent inducement and mala fide intent also support the case of the plaintiff.
Defendants' claims about plaintiff's hacking activities lack credible evidence and are contradicted by their own witness DW3.
The legal framework of rescinding contracts induced by fraud (Indian Contract Act) supports plaintiff's right to seek cancellation and damages.
129. This Court is inclined to observe and note that the defendants (DW2 and DW3) made several contradictory statements while being under oath, throughout the evidence proceedings which spanned from November 2024 to August 2025.
Page 58 of 79130. For instance, regarding the payment of induction charges, while defendants initially denied knowledge of payments made by the plaintiff, during cross-examination on November 19, 2024, and December 3, 2024, they admitted that the plaintiff paid AED 3185 and partly funded a payment of AED 2925 to Defendant no. 2, Shiv Chaudhary.
131. In their written statement and early evidence sessions in January and February 2025, defendants claimed ignorance regarding the Emirates Card of the earlier partner Saurav Chawla; however, by mid-2025 during cross-examinations held on June 30, July 3, July 5, and August 13, they acknowledged awareness of the card's validity until November 22, 2024, and that it had not been formally surrendered.
132. Regarding business activities in Dubai, the defendants initially denied the plaintiff's involvement in any business meetings during the tourist visa stay but later conceded in July 2025 that a few business meetings occurred with the plaintiff and defendant's wife present.
133. The employment of an individual named Mr. Ravi was also denied at first, but during August 2025 cross-examination, the defendants could not recall details or provide documentation, contradicting earlier firm denials.
Page 59 of 79134. Allegations concerning the misuse of email and WhatsApp accounts of Defendant no. 3 were initially claimed to be false and done by the plaintiff, but the defendants admitted in July 2025 that these assertions were based only on information from Defendant no. 2 with no direct evidence.
135. Similarly, threats allegedly made to the plaintiff were denied earlier but partial admissions surfaced in August 2025, although defendants framed these as mere warnings.
136. The defendants challenged claims that the plaintiff stayed separately in a hotel in Dubai, but they admitted in July 2025 that the plaintiff stayed at defendants' residences and friend Abhijeet's place intermittently.
137. Expenses for the plaintiff during the Dubai trip, denied earlier, were partially admitted by defendants in July 2025, but they failed to produce full documentary proof.
138. Concerning the plaintiff's prior Dubai visits, defendants asserted no prior knowledge as of February 2025, but they (DW2) admitted receiving the plaintiff's documents for induction before the visit.
139. The induction of the plaintiff as a partner was initially denied to involve any false assurances, but in July 2025, some contradictions emerged with business projections conflicting with earlier denials.
Page 60 of 79140. Lastly, use of WhatsApp messages alleged to be sent by the defendants were admitted in July 2025 to have been typed and sent by the plaintiff through his own phone, contrary to prior accusations of hacking.
141. Overall, these contradictions surfaced primarily during cross-examination sessions on November 19, 2024, December 3 and 11, 2024, January 31 and February 6, 2025, June 30, July 3, 5, August 2, and 13, 2025, revealing inconsistent defense positions as new evidence and questioning unfolded.
142. This timeline exposes shifting narratives on key issues including payments, legal documentation, business activities, personal interactions, and evidence authenticity throughout the case.
143. This Court is also inclined to observe that, though not pleaded by any of the parties, the present agreement and the subsequent transactions are also hit by the Doctrine of Frustration, as enshrined in S.56 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872.
144. A contract constitutes an agreement between two or more parties creating obligations enforceable at law. The execution of such obligations may be impeded by unforeseen or supervening events--circumstances which are unexpected or incapable of Page 61 of 79 being known in advance by either party and which ultimately discharge the parties from their contractual obligations.
145. The doctrine of frustration operates as a special category of discharge of contract by reason of impossibility of performance. The Indian Contract Act, 1872 does not expressly define the term "frustration".
146. Black's Law Dictionary elucidates frustration in relation to contracts as "the doctrine that if a party's principal purpose is substantially frustrated by unanticipated changed circumstances, that party's duties are discharged and the contract is considered terminated," also termed as frustration of purpose.
147. The Hon'ble Superior Courts have nuanced the expression, observing: "The expression 'frustration of the contract' is an elliptical expression. The fuller and more accurate expression is 'frustration of the adventure or of the commercial or practical purpose of contract'". This doctrine serves as a device to reconcile the rule of absolute contracts with a special exception demanded in certain circumstances in the name of justice.
148. The origin of the doctrine may be traced to the Queen's Bench judgment in Taylor v Caldwell (1863). Prior to this judgment, both Roman Law and Common Law adhered to an extremely rigid approach regarding contractual obligations.
Page 62 of 79149. Supervening unforeseen events, rendering performance impossible or more onerous, were not regarded as excuses for non-performance.
150. The rigidity in Common Law was diluted in Caldwell, wherein Blackburn J evolved the theory of "implied condition" or "implied term," holding that "in contracts in which the performance depends on the continued existence of a given person or thing, a condition is implied that the impossibility of performance arising from the perishing of the person or thing shall excuse the performance".
151. Subsequently, various theories emerged to justify the doctrine, including the "loss of object" or "loss of foundation"
theory exemplified in Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 740, wherein it was held that the foundation of the contract had been frustrated with the cancellation of the coronation procession, which constituted the object of the agreement.
152. Lord Radcliffe in Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham UDC explained that frustration arises when unforeseen circumstances make a contract fundamentally different to perform than originally agreed.
153. The doctrine of frustration has been codified in India under Section 56 of the Act, obviating dependence on diverse theories to justify its application. Section 56 lays down a positive rule Page 63 of 79 relating to frustration and does not leave the matter to be determined according to the intention of the parties or the choice of theory to be applied by the Court.
154. A thorough exposition of the section may be found in the celebrated decision of this Court in Satyabrata Ghose v Mugneeram Bangur & Co., AIR 1954 SC 44 , wherein Mukherjee J elucidated that the first paragraph of Section 56 addresses inherent impossibility, while the second paragraph deals with supervening impossibility arising after the contract is entered into.
155. The Hon'ble Courts have clarified that the word "impossible" has not been used in the sense of physical or literal impossibility. The performance of an act may not be literally impossible but may be impracticable and useless from the point of view of the object and purpose which the parties had in view.
156. Therefore, if an untoward event or change of circumstances totally upsets the very foundation upon which the parties rested their bargain, it can very well be said that the promisor finds it impossible to do the act which he promised to do.
DECISION:
Page 64 of 79157. At this juncture, it is imperative to go back the basic tenets of the law.
Essentials of pleadings A pleading should
(a) state material facts and not the evidence on which the party seeks to rely on,
(b) state such facts in a concise form, and
(c) provide all particulars where they are required.
These conditions are contained in Order VI Rule 2 of the CPC, and the requirement to state all material facts has time and again been emphasized by the Supreme Court. For instance, in Udhav Singh v Madhav Rao Scindia AIR 1976 SC 744, wherein it was clarified that all the primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action or his defence, are material facts.
The failure to disclose material facts can even attract the grave consequence of the suit being dismissed in its entirety, making the observations of the Supreme Court in Virender Nath v. Satpal Singh 2007 (3) SCC 617 pivotal:
"...it is however absolutely essential that all basic and primary facts which must be proved at the trial by the party to establish Page 65 of 79 existence of a cause of action or defence are material facts and must be stated in the pleadings by the party."
UDHAV SINGH V. MADHAV RAO SCINDIA AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 744 "28. All the primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action or his defence, are "material facts". In the context of a charge of corrupt practice, "material facts" would mean all the basic facts constituting the ingredients of the particular corrupt practice alleged, which the petitioner is bound to substantiate before he can succeed on that charge. Whether in an election-petition, a particular fact is material or not, and as such required to be pleaded is a question which depends on the nature of the charge leveled, the ground relied upon and the special circumstances of the case. In short, all those facts which are essential to clothe the petitioner with a complete cause of action, are "material facts"
which must be pleaded and failure to plead even a single material fact amounts to disobedience of the mandate of sec. 83(1)(a). "Particulars", on the other hand, are "the details of the case set up by the party". "Material particulars" within the contemplation of clause (b) of s. 83(i) would therefore mean all the details which are necessary to amplify, refine and embellish the material facts Page 66 of 79 already pleaded in the petition in compliance with the requirements of clause (a). Particulars serve the purpose of finishing touches to the basic contours of a picture already drawn, to make it full, more detailed and more informative.
29. The distinction between material facts and material particulars" was pointed out by this Court in several cases, three of which have been cited at the bar. It is not necessary to refer to all of them. It will be sufficient to close the discussion by extracting what A. N. Ray J. (as he then was) said on this point in Hardwari Lals case (supra):
"It is therefore vital that the corrupt practice charged against the respondent should be a full and complete statement of material facts to clothe the petitioner with a complete cause of action and to give an equal and full opportunity to the respondent to meet the case and to de fend the charges. Merely, alleging that the respondent obtained or procured or attempted to obtain or procure assistance are extracting words from the statute which will have no meaning unless and until facts are stated to show what that assistance is and how the prospect of election is furthered by such assistance. In the present case, it was not even alleged that the assistance obtained or procured was other than the giving of vote. It was said by counsel for the respondent that because the statute did not render the giving of vote a corrupt practice the words "any assistance" were full statement of Page 67 of 79 material fact. The submission is fallacious for the simple reason that the manner of assistance, the measure of assistance are all various aspects of fact to clothe the petition with a cause of action which will call for an answer. Material facts are facts which if established would give the petitioner the relief asked for. If the respondent had not appeared, could the court have given a verdict in favour of the election petitioner. The answer is in the negative because the allegations in the petition did not disclose any cause of action."
158. This Court seeks to mention the essentials of a Contract/ Agreement enforceable by the law:
The Indian Contract Act of 1872 governs contracts in India and outlines the basic elements and general rules of a contract. A contract is legally binding if it meets the following essentials:
Offer and acceptance: One party makes an offer, and the other party accepts it. Acceptance can be express or implied.
Consideration: There must be something of value in return, or "quid pro quo". The consideration must be lawful, and not illegal, immoral, or against public policy.Page 68 of 79
Capacity: The parties must be legally competent to enter into the contract. This means they must be of the age of majority, have a sound mind, and not be disqualified by law.
Intention to create legal relations: The parties must intend for the agreement to be legally binding and create legal obligations.
Certainty of meaning: All parties must agree on the same thing in the same sense.
Lawful object: The contract must have a lawful object.
Possibility of performance: The contract must be possible to perform.
Legal formalities: The contract can be entered into in writing or orally Facta probanda or the facts required to be proved, are the foundational elements of any legal claim or defense. These are the material facts upon which a party bases their case. In simple terms, these are the "what" of the case ie the core allegations or assertions that a party needs to establish to succeed.
For example, based on the facts of the present case, in a breach of contract claim, the facta probanda might include:
The existence of a contract.Page 69 of 79
The obligations stipulated by the contract.
The breach of those obligations by the opposing party.
The resultant damages incurred due to the breach.
The facts are to be proved in accordance with the provisions of The Indian Evidence Act (as amended upto date/ BSA 2023) which have been reproduced herein;
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Relevant Provisions:
101. Burden of proof.
Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
Illustrations
(a)A desires a Court to give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed. A must prove that B has committed the crime.
Page 70 of 79(b)A desires a Court to give judgement that he is entitled to certain land in the possession of B, by reason of facts which he asserts and which B denies, to be true. A must prove the existence of those facts.
102. On whom burden of proof lies.
The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.
Illustrations
(a) A sues B for land of which B is in possession, and which, as A asserts, was left to A by the will of C, B's father. If no evidence were given on either side, B would be entitled to retain his possession. Therefore the burden of proof is on A.
103. Burden of proof as to any particular fact.
The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.
104. Burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence admissible.
Page 71 of 79The burden of proving any fact necessary to be proved in order to enable any person to give evidence of any other fact is on the person who wishes to give such evidence.
Illustrations
(a)A wishes to prove a dying declaration by B. A must prove B's death.
(b)A wishes to prove, by secondary evidence, the contents of a lost document. A must prove that the document has been lost.
106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.
When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Illustrations
(a)When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
(b)A is charged with travelling in a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.
109. Burden of proof as to relationship in the cases of partners, landlord and tenant, principal and agent.
When the question is whether persons are partners, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent, and it has been shown that they have been acting as such, the burden of proving that they do not Page 72 of 79 stand, or have ceased to stand, to each other in those relationships respectively, is on the person who affirms it.
110. Burden of proof as to ownership.
When the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner.
111. Proof of good faith in transactions where one party is in relation of active confidence.
Where there is a question as to the good faith of a transaction between parties, one of whom stands to the other in a position of active confidence, the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the party who is in a position of active confidence.
159. The Ld. Counsels appearing for the parties have advanced their arguments at length, and have pleaded the case of their parties to the best of their ability.
160. It is apposite to observe that the documents strongly support the plaintiff's case of misrepresentation and fraudulent Page 73 of 79 inducement in entering into the Dubai partnership, which remain unrebutted.
161. Defendants' contradictory testimony and failure to negate key allegations notably weaken their defense. The evidence favors declaring the partnership, agreements, documents null and void and granting damages to the plaintiff for expenses and mental agony. The defendants' procedural compliance claims are insufficient to overcome the material concealment and abandonment issues raised.
162. Thus, based on the written submissions and evidentiary contradictions detailed in the document, the plaintiff's case appears legally and factually well-founded, entitling him to the reliefs of declaration, cancellation, rescission of the contract, all other supporting documents executed in regards to defendant no.4, and damages, costs, compensation.
163. After a careful perusal of the facts, circumstances of the matter coupled with the pleadings, evidence, submissions and the corresponding law relied upon by the parties, this Court is inclined to give its issue wise findings as follows:
164. Before deciding the issues dated 05.11.2024, this Court deems it fit to decide and answer the additional issues dated 03.12.2024.
Page 74 of 791A. Whether the suit is without cause of action ? OPD
165. The issue no.1A is decided against the defendants and in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants have not discharged their burden and onus of proof in regards to support their contention.
166. The defendant no.2 (Shiv Kumar Choudhary) is the only witness who appeared and tendered his evidence. It is observed that no authority letter/ board resolution was filed on behalf of the defendant no.1, defendant no.2 and defendant no.4. No witness was also examined on behalf of the defendants no.1, 3, &
4. It is observed that the defendants no.1, 3, & 4 have neither led any satisfactory evidence, nor have they discharged their onus of proof and burden as per law.
167. It can be ascertained that there is no defence on the record of this Court as far as defendants no.1, 3, & 4 are concerned.
168. This Court is also inclined to observe that there is a difference between a suit being filed 'without cause of action' and 'where a suit does not disclose a cause of action'.
169. The law under Or. VII Rule 11 recognizes the terminology 'Where a suit does not disclose a cause of action'.
170. The plea taken by the defendants is contrary to the law.
2A. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties? OPD Page 75 of 79
171. It is no more res-integra that 'misjoinder of parties' is not fatal to the suit.
172. The record also reveals that no application U/Or VII Rule 11 CPC, 1908 has been filed by the defendants.
173. Accordingly, issue no.2A is decided against the defendants and in favor of the plaintiff.
174. The issues framed vide order dated 05.11.2024 are answered and decided as:
Issue No.1:Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree against the defendants for declaration of documents as null & void, as prayed for in prayer clause (a)? OPP
175. Issue no.1 is answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants no.1 to 4. The documents forming the subject matter of the suit executed between the plaintiff and defendants no.1 to 4 in regards to defendant no.4 are hereby declared cancelled, void-ab-initio, vitiated by fraud.
Issue No.2:Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of Rs.27,40,000/- against the defendants, as prayed for in prayer clause (b)? OPP Page 76 of 79
176. It has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, that upon returning to India, the plaintiff suffered immensely on account of psychological harassment, mental agony, and was forced to seek medical treatment. Relevant documents have been filed and exhibited during PE.
177. During the Course of the arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff had to bear an amount of approximately Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupee Two Lakh Fifty Thousand only), during his travel to Dubai in June 24'-July 24'.
178. The Ld. Counsel has also sought damages/compensation amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- per month with effect from July 2024, costs of litigation of Rs.3,66,000/-, and costs of evidence proceedings before the Local Commissioner fees for six (7) sessions amounting to Rs.52,500/-.
179. Upon a careful perusal of the facts and circumstances, Issue no.2 is decided in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants no.1 to 4. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, this Court deems it fit to grant damages as follows:
Rs.2,50,000/- claimed as direct expenses borne by the plaintiff in regards to travel, stay, visa, other expenses in Dubai during June- July 2024;Page 77 of 79
Rs.52,500/- Claimed as fees for evidence proceedings before the LC;
Rs.3,66,000/- Claimed as Costs of Litigation/ Legal Expenses;
Rs.50,000/- per month, claimed as damages w.e.f. July 2024 till the date of judgment;
Reimbursement of Court fee of Rs.29,100/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand One Hundred) The plaintiff is entitled to a money decree of Rs.14,47,600/- (Rupees Fourteen Lac Forty Seven Thousand Six Hundred) Issue No.3:Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of pendente lite and future interest @18% per annum against the defendants, as prayed for in prayer clause (c)? OPP
180. Issue no. 3 is answered in favor the plaintiff and against the defendants.
181. This Court deems it fit to grant future interest at 9% per annum, simple interest, from the date of judgement till the date of its realization.
Page 78 of 79Relief.
182. In view of the above decided issues, relief of declaration and cancellation is granted in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. All documents executed between the plaintiff and defendant no.4 are declared as null and void, and are hereby cancelled.
183. The plaintiff is granted a money decree amounting to Rs 14,47,600/- (Rupees Fourteen Lac Forty Seven Thousand Six Hundred)/- along with 9% simple interest w.e.f. the date of the judgement till its realization.
184. The suit is decreed and disposed of on the above terms.
185. Decree Sheet be drawn up, upon payment of deficit court fees, if any, as per rules.
186. Filed be consigned to record room.
Copy of the judgment be given Dasti.
Announced in the open Court on 18.10.2025.
(Sunil Beniwal) District Judge-06(South), Digitally signed by Sunil Saket Courts, New Delhi Sunil beniwal beniwal Date:
2025.10.18 15:34:41 +0530 Page 79 of 79