April 16 Main results of the day

In the dispute between the Supplier and the Buyer, we succeeded, leaving the opponent’s appeal without satisfaction.

In his complaint, the Buyer asked for the cancellation of the decision and refusal to recover, referring to the lack of debt due to payment of the remaining part of the goods by receipts between individuals who are employees of both parties.

Meanwhile, we have presented evidence of the lack of contractual relations with an individual who received funds on the specified receipts, gave explanations about the methods of payment provided for by the parties, and thereby proved the legitimacy of the requirements and the legality of the decision.

The court rejected all of the Defendant’s arguments, including calling witnesses to explain the validity of the receipts and the disproportionality of the penalty imposed. The decision rendered in favor of our client has entered into legal force and is subject to actual execution.

Performer: Maria Ovchinnikova, Head of the Department of Legal Support for Contractual and Judicial Work at the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

We protected the Principal from the collection of a court penalty in the amount of 200,000 rubles per month!

The essence of the matter:

– In 2022, the court ordered the Principal to fulfill the security obligations regarding the cultural heritage object acquired by him: to develop design documentation and carry out appropriate work.

– Three years later, the Department of Cultural Heritage appealed to the Arbitration Court of Moscow with a statement on the recovery of a judicial penalty for non-execution of a decision in the amount of 200,000 rubles per month until the actual execution.

The Bureau’s lawyers convinced the court of the Defendant’s good faith and the existence of objective obligations that prevent the execution of the court’s decision on time:

– the impossibility of obtaining urban planning plans due to the presence of a dispute about the unauthorized building belonging to third parties;

— expanding the subject of protection and increasing the volume of necessary work;

— evidence of the fact that the process was “delayed” by the state in a decision on a related case of prejudicial importance.

The case was handled:

Grigory Mirovsky, senior lawyer of the practice of legal support of entrepreneurship,

Shchiptsova Julia, lawyer of the practice of legal support of entrepreneurship.