RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
27/04/2024
Saturday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
27 April 
1970 The opening of the subway in Yekaterinburg
1970 The opening of the subway in Yekaterinburg
1970 The population was evacuated from Pripyat after the Chernobyl accident - all 40 thousand inhabitants were evacuated in 3 hours
1970 The population was evacuated from Pripyat after the Chernobyl accident - all 40 thousand inhabitants were evacuated in 3 hours
1970 The beginning of the civil war in Afghanistan, which continues up to this day
1970 The beginning of the civil war in Afghanistan, which continues up to this day
27 April
1970 The opening of the subway in Yekaterinburg
1970 The opening of the subway in Yekaterinburg
1970 The population was evacuated from Pripyat after the Chernobyl accident - all 40 thousand inhabitants were evacuated in 3 hours
1970 The population was evacuated from Pripyat after the Chernobyl accident - all 40 thousand inhabitants were evacuated in 3 hours
1970 The beginning of the civil war in Afghanistan, which continues up to this day
1970 The beginning of the civil war in Afghanistan, which continues up to this day
THE SUPREME COURT WILL DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF PROPER NOTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT ON THE DISPUTED TRANSACTION
As part of the bankruptcy case (No. A45-26827/21), the manager appealed to the court with an application to challenge the car purchase and sale agreement concluded between the debtor's spouse and the defendant.
In satisfying the application, the court of first instance proceeded from the non-market value of the disputed contract.
The appeal refused to restore the missed deadline for appeal and was supported by cassation.
The Supreme Court (SC) referred the defendant's complaint to the board for consideration and noted the following arguments:
• The defendant indicates in his complaint that he has not received either an application for invalidation of the transaction or court notices.
• According to the postal identifier, the letter with the manager's statement arrived at the place of delivery, but there were no attempts to deliver it from the postal service. At the same time, according to the defendant, there are no receipts for sending court notices to him in the case file.
• The defendant became aware of the existence of a separate dispute and the ruling of the court of first instance on it from the bailiff.
In satisfying the application, the court of first instance proceeded from the non-market value of the disputed contract.
The appeal refused to restore the missed deadline for appeal and was supported by cassation.
The Supreme Court (SC) referred the defendant's complaint to the board for consideration and noted the following arguments:
• The defendant indicates in his complaint that he has not received either an application for invalidation of the transaction or court notices.
• According to the postal identifier, the letter with the manager's statement arrived at the place of delivery, but there were no attempts to deliver it from the postal service. At the same time, according to the defendant, there are no receipts for sending court notices to him in the case file.
• The defendant became aware of the existence of a separate dispute and the ruling of the court of first instance on it from the bailiff.
21.03.2024
