RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
16/09/2024
Monday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
16 September 
1970 "Black Wednesday" of the British pound sterling.
1970 The Montreal Treaty for the Protection of the Earth's Ozone Layer was signed.
1970 Mexico declared independence from Spain.
16 September
1970 "Black Wednesday" of the British pound sterling.
1970 The Montreal Treaty for the Protection of the Earth's Ozone Layer was signed.
1970 Mexico declared independence from Spain.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EVALUATE THE APPLICATION ON ITS MERITS BEFORE ITS ADOPTION
The manager appealed to the court with a statement challenging the actions to conclude transactions made by the defendant at the expense of the debtor's property (case no. A47-10757/20).
The courts of two instances returned the application, guided by the fact that the manager chose the wrong way to protect the right, since the defendant is not a person involved in the bankruptcy case, the transactions concluded by him did not entail a decrease in the amount of the debtor's property and cannot be qualified as committed by other persons at the expense of the debtor, the arguments stated by the applicant represent disagreement with the concluded contracts and, in fact, they are objections to the defendant's claim filed with the district court for the recovery of unjustified enrichment from the debtor.
The cassation sent the dispute for a new consideration and noted that at the stage of accepting the application for production, the court does not have the right to assess the evidence and arguments presented on the merits, since the conclusions of the court in such a case may prejudge the dispute, which is unacceptable, and also does not have the right to return the statement on the grounds of unconfirmed circumstances on which the applicant bases his claims, since such shortcomings can be eliminated during the preparation of the case for trial.
The courts of two instances returned the application, guided by the fact that the manager chose the wrong way to protect the right, since the defendant is not a person involved in the bankruptcy case, the transactions concluded by him did not entail a decrease in the amount of the debtor's property and cannot be qualified as committed by other persons at the expense of the debtor, the arguments stated by the applicant represent disagreement with the concluded contracts and, in fact, they are objections to the defendant's claim filed with the district court for the recovery of unjustified enrichment from the debtor.
The cassation sent the dispute for a new consideration and noted that at the stage of accepting the application for production, the court does not have the right to assess the evidence and arguments presented on the merits, since the conclusions of the court in such a case may prejudge the dispute, which is unacceptable, and also does not have the right to return the statement on the grounds of unconfirmed circumstances on which the applicant bases his claims, since such shortcomings can be eliminated during the preparation of the case for trial.
02.08.2024
