RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
14/06/2025
Saturday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
14 June 
1970 The Schengen Agreement, which included five European states, was signed.
1970 The Schengen Agreement, which included five European states, was signed.
1970 China refused to recognize the USSR as the leaders of the communist movement.
1970 China refused to recognize the USSR as the leaders of the communist movement.
1970 The Hawaiian Islands became the territory of the US.
1970 The Hawaiian Islands became the territory of the US.
14 June
1970 The Schengen Agreement, which included five European states, was signed.
1970 The Schengen Agreement, which included five European states, was signed.
1970 China refused to recognize the USSR as the leaders of the communist movement.
1970 China refused to recognize the USSR as the leaders of the communist movement.
1970 The Hawaiian Islands became the territory of the US.
1970 The Hawaiian Islands became the territory of the US.
PARTIAL REFUND OF PAYMENTS AFFECTS THE CONSEQUENCES OF INVALIDITY
The manager applied to the court to challenge the debtor's payments (case no. A47-15684/22).
In rejecting the application, the court of first instance took into account the defendant's explanations regarding the circumstances of the disputed payments and the evidence provided to support them, including vehicle rental agreements, acceptance certificates, patents for the provision of motor transport services, certificates of form 6-NFDL, information about insured persons, calculations on insurance premiums, the defendant's account statements, recognized as proven by the case materials the fact of the reality of the provision of transport services to the debtor under the relevant contract, in fulfillment of which the debtor made disputed transfers.
The appeal satisfied the application, noting that during the period of the disputed transfers, the debtor already had unfulfilled obligations, which subsequently became overdue, including due to the withdrawal of funds in favor of the interested party in the absence of any counter-provision.
The court also disagreed with the conclusions of the first instance on the reality of the payments.
The cassation sent the dispute for a new appeal in part, since the defendant argued that he would partially repay the funds received from the debtor. However, the court of appeal did not give any assessment to these arguments and objections to them.
Thus, the conclusions reached by the Court of Appeal regarding the applicable consequences of the invalidity of the transaction cannot be considered justified, since all significant circumstances have not been investigated.
In rejecting the application, the court of first instance took into account the defendant's explanations regarding the circumstances of the disputed payments and the evidence provided to support them, including vehicle rental agreements, acceptance certificates, patents for the provision of motor transport services, certificates of form 6-NFDL, information about insured persons, calculations on insurance premiums, the defendant's account statements, recognized as proven by the case materials the fact of the reality of the provision of transport services to the debtor under the relevant contract, in fulfillment of which the debtor made disputed transfers.
The appeal satisfied the application, noting that during the period of the disputed transfers, the debtor already had unfulfilled obligations, which subsequently became overdue, including due to the withdrawal of funds in favor of the interested party in the absence of any counter-provision.
The court also disagreed with the conclusions of the first instance on the reality of the payments.
The cassation sent the dispute for a new appeal in part, since the defendant argued that he would partially repay the funds received from the debtor. However, the court of appeal did not give any assessment to these arguments and objections to them.
Thus, the conclusions reached by the Court of Appeal regarding the applicable consequences of the invalidity of the transaction cannot be considered justified, since all significant circumstances have not been investigated.
12.05.2025
