RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
05/12/2025
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
5 December 
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
5 December
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
WHEN IT IS POSSIBLE (AND IMPOSSIBLE) REVIEW THE COURT'S RULING?
The manager and the citizen (the former general director of the debtor) applied to the court for a review of the ruling on the inclusion of the company's claims in the register (case no. A56-46556/22) due to newly discovered circumstances.
The courts of two instances satisfied the application, pointing to the submission of new evidence (documents on the performance of work directly by the customer), which proves the offset of obligations.
The cassation refused to satisfy the applications, since the documents submitted in another separate dispute related to work performed after 07/01/2021, while the company's claims arose before that date. This does not affect their validity.
The parties have not agreed on the terms of the offset, and the company's actions (for example, providing certificates to the customer) do not indicate the termination of the debtor's obligations.
The presented evidence does not refute the previously established facts (the customer's rejection of the new terms of the agreement). They are related to another dispute and do not relate to the demands of society.
The courts of the first and appellate instances unlawfully used evidence from another dispute, where the claims of the customer company against the debtor company were considered. This did not affect the validity of the society's demands.
Photo: Freepik
The courts of two instances satisfied the application, pointing to the submission of new evidence (documents on the performance of work directly by the customer), which proves the offset of obligations.
The cassation refused to satisfy the applications, since the documents submitted in another separate dispute related to work performed after 07/01/2021, while the company's claims arose before that date. This does not affect their validity.
The parties have not agreed on the terms of the offset, and the company's actions (for example, providing certificates to the customer) do not indicate the termination of the debtor's obligations.
The presented evidence does not refute the previously established facts (the customer's rejection of the new terms of the agreement). They are related to another dispute and do not relate to the demands of society.
The courts of the first and appellate instances unlawfully used evidence from another dispute, where the claims of the customer company against the debtor company were considered. This did not affect the validity of the society's demands.
Photo: Freepik
26.05.2025
