The court called for detailed consideration of cases of recovery of penalty in bankruptcy

The complaint of a bankruptcy trustee, who was dissatisfied with the position of the appeal instance, was transferred for consideration to the district court.  In his appeal, the trustee stated that three judges did not consider the fact that the director of debtor did not provide the necessary documentation to the him as proven and therefore refused to recover the penalty.

Initially, the question concerned simply the transfer of documents to the trustee, in connection with which the he went to court with a corresponding claim. The claim was satisfied in the court of first instance and a writ of execution was issued.

However, the head of debtor did not hand the documentation over, then the trustee went to the court again and demanded that the penalty should be recovered from him for failure to comply with the judicial act.

This claim of the trustee was also satisfied, but subsequently the decision of the court of first instance to recover a penalty from the head of debtor was canceled.

The trustee, expressing disagreement with the position of the judges, justified his correctness by the fact that the courts relied only on the defendant's oral statements about the transfer of documents. No written evidence of this was presented to the arbitration court.

In addition, according to the applicant, by canceling the decision to provide documentation, the court went beyond its powers, since the subject of its consideration was the validity of the recovery of penalty from the director and its size.

The district court agreed with the arguments of the trustee, canceled the decisions made by the lower instances and sent the dispute for reconsideration (decision No. F09-6629/21 in case No. A76-31015/2019 dated March 4, 2022).