RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
28/12/2024
Saturday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
28 December 
1970 the Novosibirsk Metro was commissioned.
1970 A public screening of the Lumiere Brothers Cinematography took place, the birth of cinema.
1970 The first chewing gum was patented in Ohio.
28 December
1970 the Novosibirsk Metro was commissioned.
1970 A public screening of the Lumiere Brothers Cinematography took place, the birth of cinema.
1970 The first chewing gum was patented in Ohio.
THE SPECIFIED REQUIREMENTS MAY BECOME COMPLICATED
The creditor applied to the court to challenge the purchase and sale agreements (case no. A07-39563/18).
The Court of first instance refused to satisfy the application, referring to the fact that there were no grounds for satisfying the stated claims due to the lack of evidence of the factual circumstances necessary to invalidate the contested transactions.
The appeal satisfied the claim, recognizing that the total price of the disputed transactions is 13% of the total cadastral value of the sold property, which indicates the unequal value of the transaction.
The district Court sent the dispute for a new appeal and pointed out that the appeal accepted the clarification of the stated requirements and proceeded to consider the dispute according to the rules of the first instance.
Meanwhile, there was no judicial act of the court of first instance, including the protocol, on the refusal to accept these clarifications in the materials of the present dispute, the creditor's application for invalidation of transactions was considered by the court of first instance without appropriate clarification.
In addition, with regard to the clarified new claims, the debtor claimed that the statute of limitations had been omitted.
At the same time, as follows from the content of the appealed decision, the court of appeal did not consider the objections on the merits, ignoring the debtor's argument about missing the limitation period, in no way checked the creditor's compliance with the deadline for filing an application to challenge the transaction, despite the fact that this argument was repeatedly stated when considering a separate dispute in the court of appeal (in written explanations and verbally).
In addition, the argument of the cassation complaints about the absence in the judicial act of the court of appeal of justification for the use of the cadastral value of objects in determining the transaction price deserves attention, while the expert opinion obtained by the court based on the results of the repeated forensic examination was not evaluated by the court of appeal, and the reasons for not applying the value of objects obtained based on the results of the expert study were not given.
The Court of first instance refused to satisfy the application, referring to the fact that there were no grounds for satisfying the stated claims due to the lack of evidence of the factual circumstances necessary to invalidate the contested transactions.
The appeal satisfied the claim, recognizing that the total price of the disputed transactions is 13% of the total cadastral value of the sold property, which indicates the unequal value of the transaction.
The district Court sent the dispute for a new appeal and pointed out that the appeal accepted the clarification of the stated requirements and proceeded to consider the dispute according to the rules of the first instance.
Meanwhile, there was no judicial act of the court of first instance, including the protocol, on the refusal to accept these clarifications in the materials of the present dispute, the creditor's application for invalidation of transactions was considered by the court of first instance without appropriate clarification.
In addition, with regard to the clarified new claims, the debtor claimed that the statute of limitations had been omitted.
At the same time, as follows from the content of the appealed decision, the court of appeal did not consider the objections on the merits, ignoring the debtor's argument about missing the limitation period, in no way checked the creditor's compliance with the deadline for filing an application to challenge the transaction, despite the fact that this argument was repeatedly stated when considering a separate dispute in the court of appeal (in written explanations and verbally).
In addition, the argument of the cassation complaints about the absence in the judicial act of the court of appeal of justification for the use of the cadastral value of objects in determining the transaction price deserves attention, while the expert opinion obtained by the court based on the results of the repeated forensic examination was not evaluated by the court of appeal, and the reasons for not applying the value of objects obtained based on the results of the expert study were not given.
25.12.2024
