RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
05/12/2025
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
5 December 
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
5 December
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
Challenging the decisions of the organizer of the bankruptcy auction
The entrepreneur applied to the court for invalidation of the decision of the organizer of the auction to reject his bid for participation in the auction; invalidation of the protocol on the determination of bidders; recognition of him as the winner of the auction; the obligation of the organizer of the auction to conclude a contract with him (case no. A53-18790/19).
The courts refused to satisfy the application, noting that the restoration of the entrepreneur's rights by concluding a property purchase and sale agreement with him based on the results of the auction is impossible, since the auction and the purchase and sale agreement concluded based on the results of the auction have not been challenged, and the purchase and sale agreement concluded with the winner of the auction has not been invalidated.
Taking into account the subject matter and grounds of the stated claim, its satisfaction will not lead to restoration of the rights of the bidder, in violation of the principle of legal certainty, it will lead to the adoption of an unenforceable judicial act.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration in part, noting that the plaintiff's rejection in court of part of the claims made in the framework of a separate dispute was not motivated by any arguments.
This indicates that the plaintiff has not lost interest in challenging the bidding, but has failed to properly qualify the disputed claims.
Neither the court of first instance nor the Court of Appeal considered the merits of the claim on the illegality of rejecting the plaintiff's bid at the auction, invalidating the protocol on the determination of bidders.
It follows from the content of the audio protocol of the court session that, when issuing the appealed ruling, the court of first instance accepted the plaintiff's waiver of part of the claims and terminated the proceedings in this part, conferring on the spot, issued a protocol ruling that does not comply with the specified procedural rules.
Photo: Freepik
The courts refused to satisfy the application, noting that the restoration of the entrepreneur's rights by concluding a property purchase and sale agreement with him based on the results of the auction is impossible, since the auction and the purchase and sale agreement concluded based on the results of the auction have not been challenged, and the purchase and sale agreement concluded with the winner of the auction has not been invalidated.
Taking into account the subject matter and grounds of the stated claim, its satisfaction will not lead to restoration of the rights of the bidder, in violation of the principle of legal certainty, it will lead to the adoption of an unenforceable judicial act.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration in part, noting that the plaintiff's rejection in court of part of the claims made in the framework of a separate dispute was not motivated by any arguments.
This indicates that the plaintiff has not lost interest in challenging the bidding, but has failed to properly qualify the disputed claims.
Neither the court of first instance nor the Court of Appeal considered the merits of the claim on the illegality of rejecting the plaintiff's bid at the auction, invalidating the protocol on the determination of bidders.
It follows from the content of the audio protocol of the court session that, when issuing the appealed ruling, the court of first instance accepted the plaintiff's waiver of part of the claims and terminated the proceedings in this part, conferring on the spot, issued a protocol ruling that does not comply with the specified procedural rules.
Photo: Freepik
26.06.2025
