June 13 Main results of the day

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the court of first instance to recover an unearned advance payment from the counterparty in favor of the bankrupt person. The Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” represented the interests of a third party in the case, the former general director of the company, but despite this, it was we who had to defend the position that there were no grounds for canceling the judicial act, since the bankruptcy trustee of the Plaintiff did not even appear at the court session. As a result, the Court of Appeal agreed with the arguments of the Bureau’s lawyers that the limitation period on claims for recovery of unjustified enrichment in the form of an unearned advance payment begins to run from the moment of sending a notice of refusal from the contract, and not from the moment the work specified in the contract is completed, as a result, the opponents’ appeal was denied. The interests of the Principal were represented by Ekaterina Bulygina, Senior Lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Moscow City Court upheld the decision of the Chertanovsky District Court of Moscow, previously rendered in favor of the Principal. The Court of Appeal agreed with the arguments of the lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” that by itself, the indication in the payment orders about the payment of the lease of the accounts of a third party, provided the indication that the payment is for the Defendant, does not mean that the lease agreement was not concluded and the premises were not transferred for use. The opponents’ argument that the tenant did not sign the contract, and his signature was falsified, was also not confirmed. The examination carried out on the case could not reliably establish that the signature did not belong to the tenant. The interests of the Principal were represented by Ilsur Zakirov and Irina Novikova, senior lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.