Delhi District Court
Karan Jeena vs Pearson Agencies Private Limited on 17 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGDISH KUMAR
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-01)
NORTH DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
CS (COMM.) NO. 6939/2024
CNR No. DLNT0101-7812-2024
Sh. Karan Jeena
S/o Sh. Mahesh Jeena
R/o G-20/196, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi-110085
E-mail [email protected]
Mob.: 9999861095
...Plaintiff
Versus
1. Pearsons Agencies Private Limited
Regd. Office At :
House No. 269A Kaniyan Distt. Nainital
Near Hanuman Mandir, Gangotri Vihar
Ramnagar, Uttarakhand
India-244715
E mail:[email protected]
2. Sh. Prakash Rikhari
R/o House No. 269A Kaniyan Distt Nainital
Near Hanuman Mandir, Gangotri Vihar
Ramnagar, Uttarakhand
India-244715
Mob:9720079191,9068439191
9412162749
....DEFENDANTS
Date of institution of case : 06.12.2024
Date of arguments : 13.02.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 17.02.2026
Digitally signed
CS (Comm) No.: 6939/2024 Karan Jeena Vs. Pearsons Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 1of 9 by JAGDISH
JAGDISH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.02.17
15:51:21 +0530
JUDGMENT:
1. The facts of the present suit are that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of INR 4,50,000/-, along with pendent lite and future interest and costs, against the defendants. Plaintiff has asserted that the disputed is a commercial dispute as defined under section 2(1)(c)(xi) and section 2(1)(c)(xxi) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as it falls within the category of 'joint venture agreements' and 'contracts of agency', among other categories. The plaintiff stated that the defendant no. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and carrying its business from its registered office H. No-269A Kaniyan Distt Nainital Near Hanuman Mandir, Gangotri Vihar, Ramnagar, Uttarakhand, India-244715, and is engaged in contracts and tender business. The defendant no. 2 Sh. Prakash Rikhari is Director at Pearson Agencies Private Limited (defendant no. 1)
2. The defendant no. 2 proposed a partnership with the plaintiff, promising significant profits from the collaboration and he also claimed to be in a position to secure lucrative military contracts that required manpower, which he proposed to subcontract to the plaintiff. Defendant no. 2 assured the plaintiff that by investing in this business model, the plaintiff would share in the profits. Thereafter, in month of April 2022, plaintiff invested Rs. 3,00,000/- with defendants out of which he transferred Rs. 2,50,000/- in the bank account of defendant no.2 and Rs. 50,000/- in the account of defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 2 assured the plaintiff that when the remuneration will be Digitally signed CS (Comm) No.: 6939/2024 Karan Jeena Vs. Pearsons Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 2of 9 by JAGDISH KUMAR JAGDISH Date:
KUMAR 2026.02.17
15:51:29
+0530
received from the army for the secured tenders, plaintiff will get his share of profits. The subsequent payments made by the plaintiff, in August 2022. The defendant no. 2 represented that contracts/tenders had been successfully secured, consistent with the representations made in previous demonstrations. Defendant no. 2 further assured the plaintiff that, upon successful completion of the tender process and the receipt of payment for the services rendered the plaintiff would be entitled to receive his proportionate share of the profits as per the terms of their agreement.
3. After the payment, the plaintiff has attempted to contact defendant no. 2 on multiple occasions to inquire about the status of the project. However, defendant no. 2 consistently provided various excuses. Thereafter, a FIR bearing No. 0004/2023 P.S. Deghaat, Almora, Uttrakhand, under Section: 420 IPC has also been registered against defendant no. 2. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff approached the Delhi Legal Service Committee North District at Rohini Court as per the Commercial Court Act, 2015 Act for Pre-Institution mediation. But same remained unsuccessful. The Mediation Authority issued the Non Starter report dt. 31.07.2024. Thereafter, this suit has been filed before this Court.
4. After filing of the suit, notice of the suit was issued to the defendants. Defendant's defence was struck off vide order dated 13.05.2025, as written statement was not filed by the defendant. The following notional issues were framed as under:
Digitally signed by JAGDISH KUMARCS (Comm) No.: 6939/2024 Karan Jeena Vs. Pearsons Agencies Pvt. Ltd. JAGDISH Page No. 3of 9 Date:
KUMAR 2026.02.17
15:51:38
+0530
(i) Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the suit amount? ...OPP
(ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest? If yes, at what rate and for what period? ...OPP
(iii) Relief.
5. PW-1 Sh. Karan Jeena, (plaintiff) has filed his evidence by way of affidavit and deposed on the same lines as set forth in the suit of the plaintiff which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. The plaintiff has placed on record the following documents which are as under :-
1. Copies of all emails sent by the defendant no. 2 to plaintiff on the behalf of defendant no. 1 is Exhibited as Ex. PW-1/1.
2. Copies of draft of the documents sent by defendant no. 2 from official mail id of defendant no. 1 to plaintiff for appointment as director in defendant no. 1 (company) (colly total 7 pages) Exhibited as Ex. PW-1/2.
3. Downloaded Copies of bank Statement of plaintiff showing the transactions made into accounts of defendant no.1 & defendant no. 2 (colly total 3 pages) Exhibited as Ex. PW-1/3.
4. Copies of screenshots of what's app chats between plaintiff and defendant no. 2 regarding tenders confirmation and payments made into the accounts of defendant no. 1 & 2 (colly total 4 pages) is Exhibited as Ex. PW-1/4.
5. Copy of the Pre- Mediation Application is (colly total 22 pages) Exhibited as Ex. PW-1/5.
6. Copy of the non -starter report is Exhibited as Ex. PW-1/6.Digitally signed by JAGDISH
JAGDISH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.02.17
CS (Comm) No.: 6939/2024 Karan Jeena Vs. Pearsons Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 4of 9 15:51:46 +0530
7. Plaintiff has also rely on the certificate by way of affidavit under Order 11 Rule 6 CPC r/w Section 63 of BSA, 2023 Ex.
PW-1/7.
The PW-1 has been cross-examined by the defendants at length. During cross-examination the PW-1 had deposed that the subcontract proposed by defendant no. 2 was for supply of the manpower to the military. He further deposed that he had not been in this manpower business earlier to this and defendant no. 2 having being involved in this business. He further deposed that there is no seal/stamp of director/company on share certificate issued by the defendant no. 1 on documents provided to him by defendant.
6. I have heard the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and defendants. Learned Counsel for defendants has also filed his written submissions. I have perused the record carefully and given consideration to the submissions being made by the Learned counsel for parties.
7. My issue wise findings are as under :-
ISSUE NO. 1The burden of proving this issue is upon the plaintiff. Plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 to prove the contention as mentioned in the plaint. PW-1 reiterated in his evidence, being filed through affidavit, the contents of the plaint. Though, in the present case there is no written contract has been placed on record qua awarding of any sub contract to the plaintiff for providing manpower to the defendant no. 1, in case defendant no. 1 secure the contract from the military. But, PW-1 (plaintiff) has CS (Comm) No.: 6939/2024 Karan Jeena Vs. Pearsons Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 5of 9 Digitally signed JAGDISH by JAGDISH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.02.17 15:51:54 +0530 asserted in his plaint that defendant no. 2 has assured to award sub contract to the plaintiff. This assertion being made by the plaintiff in his plaint has been reiterated by PW-1 (plaintiff), in his evidence being filed by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A. There is no fact come in cross-examination of the PW-1 which disprove the evidence in this regarding being deposed by PW-1. The plaintiff has placed on record Ex. PW-1/3 i.e. bank statement of account of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has made the said payments which are as under :
S. No. Date Ref. ID Amount 1. 29.04.2022 N119221937047173 INR 10,000/- 2. 29.04.2022 0000211902939969 INR 50,000/- 3. 30.04.2022 N120221937129713 INR 40,000/- 4. 30.04.20222 N120221937637959 INR 50,000/- 5. 30.04.2022 0000212014821201 INR 30,000/- 6. 01.05.2022 N121221939292299 INR 70,000/- 7. 03.05.2022 0000212376292789 INR 50,000/-
8. There is no cross-examination on this document Ex.
PW-1/3. The payment of Rs. 3 lacs were paid to the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 by way of electronic mode, either by NEFT or UPI in the account of the defendants. There is no denial at all or cross-examination on this deposition. So, the fact has been proved on record that payment has been made i.e. Rs. 3 lacs to the defendant no. 1 & 2. As per evidence by PW-1, his deposition has not been shaked in the cross-examination of PW-1. It is also proved on record by PW-1 that neither the subcontract was awarded to him nor any payment was returned.
9. The defendant has obtained the money from the plaintiff by misrepresentation, on the pretext of joint venture agreement as well as on the pretext of granting subcontract. The CS (Comm) No.: 6939/2024 Karan Jeena Vs. Pearsons Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 6of 9 Digitally signed by JAGDISH JAGDISH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.17 15:52:02 +0530 fact that money has been paid by plaintiff to the defendants i.e. Rs. 50,000/- to defendant no. 1 and Rs. 2,50,000/- to the defendant no. 2, is proved. In that circumstances there is liability of defendants to return the money being received by misrepresenting from plaintiff. The defendant no. 2 is one of the Director of defendant no. 1 and he has misrepresented the plaintiff for entering into an oral agreement. Hence, defendant no. 1 & defendant no. 2 are liable to return the money to the plaintiff being received by defendant no. 1 & 2 by misrepresentation. The issue is decided accordingly by holding that defendant no. 1 is liable to return Rs. 50,000/- to the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 is liable to return Rs. 2,50,000/- to the plaintiff. The defendants are liable to restitute the money to plaintiff.
10. So far as arguments of Ld. Counsel for defendants that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit, is concerned. Having considered the submissions being made by the Ld. Counsel for defendants and on perusal of file, it reveals that the issue of territorial jurisdiction was adjudicated by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dt. 25.09.2025. As a part of cause of action as contemplated u/s 20(c) CPC arose in jurisdiction of this Court. That order has not been challenged. Even otherwise, the payment of Rs. 3 lacs i.e Rs. 50,000/- to defendant no. 1 and Rs. 2,50,000/- to the defendant no. 2 were being paid by the plaintiff through his bank situated within the jurisdiction of this Court. Hence this court is having territorial jurisdiction.
Digitally
signed by
JAGDISH
JAGDISH KUMAR
CS (Comm) No.: 6939/2024 Karan Jeena Vs. Pearsons Agencies Pvt. Ltd. KUMAR
Page No. 7of 9
Date:
2026.02.17
15:52:11
+0530
11. Another argument tendered by the Learned counsel from defendant is that since the plaintiff has claimed the joint venture agreement, however, no written agreement has been placed on record in this regard for consideration. The contract may be either in written or oral agreement. The plaintiff has specifically asserted in the plaint that the contract was verbal in nature and he has deposed on the same lines in his deposition which has not been shaked in cross-examination. Hence the submissions of defendant is not sustainable. The issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
12. ISSUE No. 2.
The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. There is no agreement between the plaintiff and defendants qua paying of any interest in case of breach. Further, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court awards interest @ 9% per annum to the plaintiff against the defendants qua their liability respectively, from the date of the suit i.e. for pendent lite and for future period till realization of the decree. Issue is decided accordingly. This issue is decided accordingly in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
13. RELIEF:.
In view of the finding given on the above said issues the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 50,000/- which is to be paid by defendant no. 1 and Rs. 2,50,000/- is to be paid by defendant no. 2 to the plaintiff and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the suit i.e. for pendent lite and for future period till realization of the decree.
Digitally signed by JAGDISHCS (Comm) No.: 6939/2024 Karan Jeena Vs. Pearsons Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 8of 9 KUMAR JAGDISH Date:
KUMAR 2026.02.17
15:52:21
+0530
14. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to the cost of the suit. Suit is decreed accordingly.
15. Copy of the judgment be sent to both the parties by electronic mode, if available or otherwise.
16. Decree sheet be prepared.
17. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signedAnnounced in open court today i.e. on JAGDISH by JAGDISH KUMAR 17.02.2026 KUMAR Date:
2026.02.17 15:52:27 +0530 (JAGDISH KUMAR) District Judge, Comm. Court-01 North, Rohini Courts Delhi CS (Comm) No.: 6939/2024 Karan Jeena Vs. Pearsons Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 9of 9