RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
14/05/2024
Tuesday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
14 May 
1970 The creation of the CIS Economic Union.
1970 The creation of the CIS Economic Union.
1970 The establishment of the state of Israel and declaration of its independence.
1970 The establishment of the state of Israel and declaration of its independence.
1970 The sale of serfs at the public auctions was prohibited in Russia.
1970 The sale of serfs at the public auctions was prohibited in Russia.
14 May
1970 The creation of the CIS Economic Union.
1970 The creation of the CIS Economic Union.
1970 The establishment of the state of Israel and declaration of its independence.
1970 The establishment of the state of Israel and declaration of its independence.
1970 The sale of serfs at the public auctions was prohibited in Russia.
1970 The sale of serfs at the public auctions was prohibited in Russia.
DOUBTS ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CONCLUSION OF THE CONTRACT REQUIRE VERIFICATION
As part of the debtor's bankruptcy case (no. A40-300549/19), the creditor filed an application to include his claim from the loan agreement in the register.
The courts, having disagreed with each other regarding the requirements for the reason of missing the limitation period, satisfied the application, guided by the fact that the loan agreement was not recognized as invalid, and the financial ability of the lender to provide a loan in the declared amount was confirmed by income from prize payments received by him for participating in international tournaments, as well as from holding simultaneous game sessions and publications of books on chess, as well as the creditor's income from activities as a deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation. With regard to the claim for one of the receipts, the court stated that in the receipt itself, the debtor confirmed the receipt of funds in the specified amount and guaranteed their return.
The debtor did not agree with the judicial acts and filed a complaint with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which referred it to the collegium and noted the following arguments:
"The applicant refers to the fact that the loan agreement is unreliable evidence, claimed falsification of evidence, indicating that neither the creditor nor the debtor were present at the date of its conclusion in the Republic of Ingushetia, where this agreement is certified. The debtor was in Italy, and the creditor was in Moscow. In support of these circumstances, relevant evidence has been submitted to the case materials, which have not received any legal assessment from the court.
The debtor drew attention to the fact that in the register of notarial actions of the unified information system of the notary, information about the commission of a notarial action for the corresponding registry number was not found.
According to the applicant, the arguments and evidence presented by him were sufficient for the appointment of a judicial handwriting examination in the case, however, the court of first instance unreasonably refused to satisfy this petition, and also rejected the application for falsification of evidence."
The courts, having disagreed with each other regarding the requirements for the reason of missing the limitation period, satisfied the application, guided by the fact that the loan agreement was not recognized as invalid, and the financial ability of the lender to provide a loan in the declared amount was confirmed by income from prize payments received by him for participating in international tournaments, as well as from holding simultaneous game sessions and publications of books on chess, as well as the creditor's income from activities as a deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation. With regard to the claim for one of the receipts, the court stated that in the receipt itself, the debtor confirmed the receipt of funds in the specified amount and guaranteed their return.
The debtor did not agree with the judicial acts and filed a complaint with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which referred it to the collegium and noted the following arguments:
"The applicant refers to the fact that the loan agreement is unreliable evidence, claimed falsification of evidence, indicating that neither the creditor nor the debtor were present at the date of its conclusion in the Republic of Ingushetia, where this agreement is certified. The debtor was in Italy, and the creditor was in Moscow. In support of these circumstances, relevant evidence has been submitted to the case materials, which have not received any legal assessment from the court.
The debtor drew attention to the fact that in the register of notarial actions of the unified information system of the notary, information about the commission of a notarial action for the corresponding registry number was not found.
According to the applicant, the arguments and evidence presented by him were sufficient for the appointment of a judicial handwriting examination in the case, however, the court of first instance unreasonably refused to satisfy this petition, and also rejected the application for falsification of evidence."
27.11.2023
