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 VERDICT AGAINST THE DIRECTOR IS THE BASIS FOR REVIEW
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to recover funds from the defendant under the lease agreement (case no. A68-2368/20), the claims were satisfied by the courts.
The defendant applied for a review of the decision on newly discovered circumstances, referring to the existence of a verdict against the plaintiff's director.
The courts of three instances refused to satisfy the application, based on the fact that the arguments given by the defendant did not meet the criteria of the newly discovered circumstances.
The courts noted that the verdict was passed against the head of the plaintiff, who is not a party to the present dispute.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation referred the defendant's complaint to the board, reflecting the arguments that the courts did not take into account that the verdict was passed against the actual head of the plaintiff, and therefore the circumstances related to the criminal act committed by him are of legal importance for the present dispute.
The defendant also believes that the courts unlawfully failed to take into account the circumstances established by the verdict, indicating the impossibility of using the disputed loader.
The defendant applied for a review of the decision on newly discovered circumstances, referring to the existence of a verdict against the plaintiff's director.
The courts of three instances refused to satisfy the application, based on the fact that the arguments given by the defendant did not meet the criteria of the newly discovered circumstances.
The courts noted that the verdict was passed against the head of the plaintiff, who is not a party to the present dispute.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation referred the defendant's complaint to the board, reflecting the arguments that the courts did not take into account that the verdict was passed against the actual head of the plaintiff, and therefore the circumstances related to the criminal act committed by him are of legal importance for the present dispute.
The defendant also believes that the courts unlawfully failed to take into account the circumstances established by the verdict, indicating the impossibility of using the disputed loader.
13.12.2023
