IN THE COURT OF LD. ADJ-03 SMT.

GURMOHINA KAUR, SOUTH

DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI

CS DJ 1010/2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

YUVRRAJ AGARWAAL ...PLAINTIFF

Versus

HITESH KUMAR CHAKRAWORTY & ORS. ...DEFENDANTS

INDEX

S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NOS.

1. Evidence by way of Affidavit on behalf of the Plaintiff
2. List of Witnesses on behalf of the Plaintiff
3. Proof of Service

THROUGH

NEW DELHI PSP Legal, Advocates and Solicitors

DATED: D 18, Block D,

Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi – 17

Phone No.

Counsels for the Plaintiff

 IN THE COURT OF LD. ADJ-03 SMT. GURMOHINA KAUR, SOUTH
DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI

CS DJ 1010/2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

YUVRRAJ AGARWAAL ...PLAINTIFF

Versus

HITESH KUMAR CHAKRAWORTY & ORS. ...DEFENDANTS

EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

I, Manasi Agarwaal, w/o Yuvrraj Agarwaal, R/o 63, Vinayak Apartments, NTPC Officers SASL,
Plot C-58/1, Sector-62, Noida – 201301, aged ____ years, presently at New Delhi, I herein do
hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:

1. I say that the Plaintiff, my husband, and Defendant No. 1 have known each other for over
14 years by way of professional relations. The Defendant worked as the Plaintiff’s
assistant in a company called Jiya Ayurveda. Subsequently, Defendant No. 1 worked
with several companies as an assistant to senior executives. Prior to coming back to India,
Defendant No. 1 was working in the Dubai office of a well-known confectionary brand.
Based on the representations and assurance made by Defendant No. 1 and given the
nature of association between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1, the Plaintiff invested
monies in and for the incorporation and operations of a company incorporate by and
under the Yathis Holistic Private Limited (“Yathis”). Pursuant to the Plaintiff's
investments, the said company was incorporated on 14.09.2016 at New Delhi.
2. I say that since February 2018 after the abrupt resignation of Mr. Monty Sharma, the
Operations Manager at Yathis, following his disagreements with Defendant No.1, I have
been assisting the Plaintiff in managing the affairs of the company.

3. I say that, initially the Plaintiff held 49% shares in Yathis and the balance of 51% was
held by Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff invested monies as required and in proportion of
his shareholding and incurred substantial expenses for the establishment and running of
the business, including payment of costs towards marketing, payment of rent & salaries,
etc. Whereas Defendant No.1 failed to perform his obligations commensurate with his
51% shareholding.

4. I say that, the Plaintiff undertook substantial efforts for marketing Yathis online on
several social media platforms and paid all expenses towards the same. Moreover, the
Plaintiff brought in the required monies to pay the monthly rent for the company office
space at FF07, Wave Silver Tower, Sector-18, Noida – 201301 along with the monies
required to pay the monthly salaries of the staff. All other daily and operational expenses
required for running the business were borne by the Plaintiff. Till date, the Plaintiff
invested a sum of Rs. 28,91,015/- towards setting up and running the business.

5. I say that, despite the fact that Defendant No.1 was required to bring in monies
proportionate to his shareholding i.e., 51%, the Plaintiff invested a sum of Rs. 5,51,666/-
towards the payment of monthly salary to Defendant No.1. Further, the Plaintiff also
incurred expenses for purported renewals of the certifications of Defendant No.1. The
Defendant No.1 assured the Plaintiff that in lieu of the salary, he will put all effort and
time into developing the business of Yathis. However, Defendant No.1 clearly failed to
do so.

6. I say that, soon after Mr. Sharma’s resignation in 2018, it became apparent to both the
Plaintiff and I that Defendant No.1 has and continues to misappropriate and siphon off
monies belonging to Yathis. On multiple occasions, Defendant No.1 fraudulently
misreported the fees collected by him towards enrolment of students. Since Defendant
No.1 was responsible for managing the day to day affairs of Yathis and since he was
 acting as its Director, it was incumbent upon Defendant No.1, and part of his fiduciary
duties, to correctly report the number of customers availing the services offered by Yathis
as well as to collect and deposit the correct course fee in the bank account of Yathis.
Clearly, Defendant No.1 has failed to do so.

7. I say that, in this background, the Plaintiff and I also learnt that while Defendant No.1
collected the entire course fee of Rs. 50,000/- each from three students, but he
fraudulently misreported the amounts so collected and in fact, did not deposit even the
amounts so reported to the Plaintiff in the company’s bank account. On one occasion, the
Defendant No.1 fraudulently misrepresented to the Plaintiff that one Mr. Mukesh Kumar
had advanced only Rs. 10,000/- towards full payment of the fee in respect of the Regular
Certificate Course in Holistic Healing, being undertaken by him. On other occasion, it
was misreported by the Defendant No.1 that Ms. Shweta Sharma and Mr. Mohd Javed
Farooqui had made payments of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 12,000/- respectively towards as
full course fee. Further, Defendant No.1 called upon one Paramjeet Bernand to part
payment towards course fee in the Defendant No.1’s personal bank account.

8. I say that, it has come to the knowledge of the Plaintiff that monies were collected by the
Defendant No.1 towards fees from several patients who had availed of the clinical
hypnotherapy services offered by Yathis, but the aforesaid sums of money were neither
reported by the Defedant No.1 to the Plaintiff nor were they deposited in the bank
accounts of Yathis. Therefore, there is a reason to believe that Defendant No.1 siphoned
and misappropriated a sum of Rs. 1,19,000/- (approximately) from students and patients,
which amount to have been reported and deposited with the company.

9. I say that, apart from misappropriating money from Yathis, Defendant No.1 also
misappropriated the intellectual property and propriety resources of the Company to
establish Defendant No.s 2 & 3 companies which are competing businesses operating
under the name and style of ‘Institute of Spiritual Science Awareness and Research’ and
‘Happy Healing’. These companies carry out and profess similar and competing business
as that of Yathis. A perusal of the websites hosted at www.happyhealing.in and
www.issar.net would clearly indicate that the aforesaid two businesses have been
 incorporated by Defendant No.1 and operate in the same line of business as Yathis. A
comparison of the website of the Defendant No. 2 hosted at www.issar.net and the
website of the company hosted on www.yathisholistic.com as on the date of filing this
plaint makes it clear that the courses offered by Defendant No.2 are the same as those
offered by Yathis. In view of the abovementioned facts, it is clear that Defendant No.1
has misappropriated the proprietary resources of Yathis including course study materials
and clientele database while continuing to exploit the same for the purposes of his two
competing businesses and in this background, the acts of Defendant No.1 amount to
unlawful tortuous interference with the trade and business of the Plaintiff.

10. I say that, from the data available in the WHOIS database, it is clear that the website
hosted at www.issar.net was created on 29.01.2018. This shows that Defendant No.1 had
reneged on his obligations qua Yathis and instead had put in motion the establishment of
a competing, i.e., Defendant No. 2. The WHOIS database also reveals that Defendant
No.1 had created www.happyhealing.in on 31.08.2015. It is apparent that Defendant
No.1, even after the incorporation of Yathis, was operating this website for promoting his
own interests and was running and operating a similar and competing business since the
very inception of Yathis. This fact was never disclosed to the Plaintiff. Further,
Defendant No.1 continues to operate the aforesaid two websites to eun a similar and
competing business, which is part of the grand scheme designed by Defendant No.1 to
deceive and defraud the Plaintiff. It is apparent that funds from Yathis were siphoned off
by Defendant No.1 for setting up and running the said similar and competing businesses
namely, Defendant Nos. 2 & 3.

11. I say that, by an email dated 22.05.2018, Defendant No.1 sought to resign as a Director
of Yathis due to purported personal and unavoidable circumstances. Thereafter, through
an email dated 29.05.2018, the Plaintiff informed Defendant No. 1 that his purported
resignation was not acceptable, and Defendant No. 1 was called upon to cease and desist
from running the two competing businesses being Defendant Nos. 2 & 3.

12. I say that, by an email dated 05.06.2018, Defendant No. 1 inter alia raised false and
frivolous allegations against the Plaintiff but however failed to provide any reason or
 answer as regards to his fraudulent conduct. The Plaintiff responded to this email via an
email dated 15.06.2018, whereby each and every allegation made was denied and the
Plaintiff inter alia, called upon Defendant No. 1 to pay the amounts, which the Plaintiff
had invested with Yathis.

13. I say that, despite receiving the aforesaid mail, Defendant No. 1 chose not to reply. The
Plaintiff made several further attempts to reach out to Defendant No. 1 by both calling
and messaging him, but Defendant No. 1 was evasive and continues to be so. In light of
such circumstances, the Plaintiff sent a legal notice to Defendant No.1 dated 10.07.2018,
to inter alia, pay a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- together with interest and damages towards the
amounts that the Plaintiff had invested.

14. I say that, Defendant No. 1 received the aforesaid legal notice but chose not to respond.
The Plaintiff’s repeated attempts to reach out to him have been completely ignored. Left
with no option, the Plaintiff filed the present suit seeking inter alia a decree against the
Defendants for recovery of the amounts invested and expended by the Plaintiff in the
business, till date.

15. I say that, a perusal of the facts and circumstances of the instant dispute make it
abundantly clear that the Defendant No.1 was never ready and willing to establish and
operate the business venture. In fact, it is apparent from the conduct of Defendant No. 1
that he induced the Plaintiff to expend substantial sums of money on the pretext of
running a business venture whereas the motive all throughout this was to defraud the
Plaintiff and utilize the resources which the Plaintiff had expended, to unjustly enrich
himself.

16. I say that, Defendant No. 1 in connivance with Defendant No. 4 employed unlawful
means to interfere with the Plaintiff’s trade and business, with the intent to injure him.
Defendant No. 4 played an instrumental role in the Defendant No. 1’s grand scheme to
defraud the Plaintiff. Defendant No.4 was engaged by the Plaintiff to handle marketing
activities of Yathis and as such, Defendant No. 4 became privy to and had access to the
intellectual property and proprietary resources of Yathis. It is apparent that Defendant
 No. 4 is now inducing Defendant No. 1 to breach the contract, which he entered with the
Plaintiff, and is using intellectual property and propriety resources of the company to
further the interest of the Defendants. Furthermore, Defendant No. 4 is aware and
conscious of the contractual obligations of Defendant No. 1 towards the Plaintiff and is
similarly aware and conscious that the Defendants are operating a similar competing
business as that of Yathis. The illegal acts of Defendant No. 4 are further fortified from
the fact that Defendant No. 1 is operating Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 (i.e., the competing
businesses) from the registered address of the Defendant No. 4. As such, Defendant No. 4
is aiding and harbouring the illegal acts of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3.

17. I say that the Defendants carry on their business and profession in New Delhi, at the
address mentioned in the cause title. The Defendants are running the similar and
competing business in Delhi. The Defendants have approached Yathis’s clients and
students in Delhi. The Defendants have siphoned off funds from Yathis in Delhi and have
misappropriated the intellectual property and proprietary property of Yathis in Delhi.
Thus, this Hon’ble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose of the
instant suit.

18. I say that, despite being called on several occasions, the Defendants have till date failed
to pay the Plaintiff the sum of Rs. 28,91,015/-, i.e., the amounts invested by the Plaintiff
in Yathis. The Plaintiff has a reasonable apprehension that the Defendants, pending the
hearing and final disposal of the accompanying suit, will sell, alienate and/or encumber
their assets so as to defeat and/or render the suit anfractuous. In the event the Defendants
are not directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 28,91,015/-, with this Hon’ble Court and/or
secure the said amount in favour of the Plaintiff in an appropriate manner, the Plaintiff
will irreparably suffer and the decree passed in the said suit, if any, would be rendered
ineffective.

19. I say that, considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it is stated that the
balance of convenience lies squarely in favour of the Plaintiff as the intellectual and
proprietary resources belong solely to Yathis. Thus, restraining the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4
from utilizing the intellectual and proprietary resources belonging to Yathis to their won
 benefit and to the detriment would not prejudice the Defendants in any manner until the
final disposal of the suit.

20. I say that the facts disclosed in the Plaint and the accompanying Application disclose and
demonstrate that the Plaintiff has strong prima facie case in his favour. That balance of
convenience lies squarely in favour of the Plaintiff. Irreparable loss and injury would be
caused to the Plaintiff if the interim relief sought for is not granted. On the other hand, no
loss or injury or damage will be caused to the Defendants if the interim reliefs are granted
to the Plaintiff.

21. I say that the present Plaint and the accompanying Application is wholly bona fide.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

I, the deponent above named, do hereby solemnly affirm that the contents of para 1 to 32 of the
forgoing affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. No part of it is
false and nothing material has been concealed there from.

Verified at New Delhi on this _____ day of ______ 2023.

DEPONENT