All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah. To proceed:
Before the First Commercial Circuit and based on Case No. 1518 for the year 1441 AH

Filed by/ (...) National ID (...)
Against/ (...) National ID (...)

Judge Omar bin Hilal Al-Harithi, President
Judge Adel bin Munir Al-Shuqani, Member
Judge Hamdan bin Said Al-Shahri, Member

(Facts)
The facts of this case, as necessary for issuing this judgment, are summarized as follows: The plaintiff's attorney submitted a lawsuit to this court, the essence of which is that his client requests the defendant to pay his share amounting to nine million Riyals from the capital of the company (...) for Automotive Services Limited, Commercial Registration No. (...). The plaintiff attached to his petition the company's founding contract dated 14/11/1435 AH, and the decision to amend the founding contract dated 25/10/1439 AH, which included an increase in the company's capital to ten million Riyals divided into one hundred equal shares, each valued at (100,000) one hundred thousand Riyals, with the defendant holding ninety shares valued at nine million Riyals. Upon registering the case and referring it to this chamber, it commenced its consideration in accordance with the records of the proceedings. The electronic pleading in the case began on 26/10/1441 AH, and the chamber requested a response from the defendant, who replied on 9/11/1441 AH denying the validity of the plaintiff's claim and requested to review the plaintiff's documents. The chamber then requested the plaintiff on 18/11/1441 AH to provide all documents related to the establishment of the company and the partners' decisions. On 21/11/1441 AH, the plaintiff submitted the founding contract of the company dated 14/11/1435 AH, clarifying that the defendant had seized all company documents, meeting minutes, and general assembly records with the intent to harm the partner, the company, its clients, and its creditors, indicating that he had filed a lawsuit regarding this matter registered under No. 1524 for the year 1441 AH, which is pending before the chamber. On 22/11/1441 AH, the chamber requested the defendant to respond to the lawsuit and clarify the mechanism through which he fulfilled the value of his shares in the company. On 23/11/1441 AH, the defendant responded with a plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction, arguing that his residence is in Riyadh, and addressing the subject of the lawsuit by stating that the plaintiff mentioned that the shares were in-kind, while the founding contract stipulates that the shares are in-kind. He added that he had paid the full value of his share of the company's capital, relying on the fact that the partners acknowledged this in the founding contract dated 29/8/1440 AH corresponding to 4/5/2019 AD, where Article Seven of the contract states: "The partners acknowledge that the shares have been distributed among them and that the full value has previously been paid for the establishment." He requested the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim based on the aforementioned admission. On 26/12/1441 AH, the chamber reiterated its request to the defendant to clarify the mechanism through which he fulfilled the value of his shares in the company, to which he reiterated his reliance on the admission in the previously mentioned founding contract. Then, in the session held on 3/3/1442 AH via video conference, the plaintiff attended in person, while it was noted that the defendant or his legal representative was absent. The plaintiff reiterated his claim before the chamber, which inquired about the increase in the company's capital, to which the plaintiff responded that it was based on the assets the company had, including cars and similar items, and that the defendant had not fulfilled his share. In the session held on 25/3/1442 AH via video conference, the plaintiff attended in person, and the defendant's attorney was also present. The chamber informed the defendant's attorney to submit what was requested of him through electronic pleading, which was to clarify the deposit status of his client's share of the capital, along with providing evidence for that, and he was required to submit it within ten days from that date through the commercial judiciary portal. The plaintiff was also informed to respond within a similar timeframe, and both parties prepared accordingly. However, the defendant did not respond by the specified deadline, and then submitted a memorandum on 30/4/1442 AH, reiterating his reliance on the admission, adding that the value of the shares was fulfilled after the decision to increase the company's capital, with in-kind shares consisting of various models and types of cars as per the amendment contract. The two partners evaluated these shares according to Article Four of the amendment contract dated 19/1/1437 AH, which stipulated that the plaintiff is liable with his private funds if the evaluation of the in-kind shares is incorrect, adding that the plaintiff's silence over the past years since the company's establishment indicates the invalidity of his claim. In the session held on 16/4/1442 AH via video conference, the plaintiff attended in person, and the defendant's attorney was also present. The chamber informed both parties that the next session would be in person before the chamber at the court's premises, and the plaintiff's attorney was informed that his client must attend in person at the next session, to which he prepared accordingly. In the session held on 7/5/1442 AH, the plaintiff attended in person, while it was noted that the defendant was absent, although his attorney was present. The attorney stated that he could not notify his client of this session despite his repeated calls and did not know his circumstances. When asked for a response to the chamber's repeated questions regarding the mechanism of his client's payment of the capital concerning the founding contract, he submitted a memorandum that the chamber reviewed but found no answer to its question. The chamber then repeated the question, and he stated that he had no answer other than what he had previously submitted. The chamber informed him that he was prohibited from attending this case and requested him to inform his client to attend the next session, otherwise, the chamber would take the necessary legal action. The plaintiff then limited his claim to obligating the defendant to fulfill the capital payment. In the session held on 13/6/1442 AH, the plaintiff attended in person before the chamber, while the defendant's attorney attended via video conference. When asked about his client's evidence of depositing his share of the company's capital, the defendant's attorney replied that his client was adhering to what was stated in the founding contract as previously mentioned, adding that there was a record of the evaluation of the in-kind shares deposited by his client, and that this record was in the plaintiff's possession. When this was presented to the plaintiff, he denied the attorney's statement regarding the existence of a record of the delivery of the shares. The chamber then asked the defendant's attorney about the reason for his client's absence, to which he replied that he had informed him of the session date and prepared to attend but could not contact him. The two parties then decided to suffice with what had been presented. Accordingly, the session was adjourned, and the chamber issued its judgment based on the following: