October 3 Main results of the day

The Arbitration Court of the Moscow District did not satisfy the cassation appeal of our procedural opponents. By decisions of the lower courts in favor of the Principal, who is the lessor of the commercial premises, the amount of the principal debt and penalties under the lease agreement were recovered from the tenant. In cassation, the tenant tried to convince the court that he had the right to unilaterally refuse to fulfill the contract and release the premises in advance. But the lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” completely defeated all the arguments of the opponents during the process. The court’s attention was also drawn to many contradictions and errors in the opponents’ documents. As a result, the decisions on debt collection from the tenant were upheld. The interests of the Principal were represented by Ruslan Katana, lawyer of the practice of resolving economic disputes of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Arbitration Court of the Moscow District left the judicial acts of lower instances unchanged. Within the framework of this dispute, the procedural opponent of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, having disagreed with the judicial acts of the lower courts, filed a cassation appeal in which he asked the court to recover the debt for the work performed. The main argument of the applicant of the complaint was the presence of an act of work performed signed by the parties, a copy of which he attached to the appeal filed earlier in the case. The Bureau’s lawyers, having familiarized themselves in detail with the arguments of the complaint and the contractor’s additional documents, submitted to the court a reasoned review, in which they refuted the contractor’s position, professionally avoiding the possible risks of canceling the decision and sending the case for a new trial. The Principal presented arguments about the contractor’s failure to fulfill the obligation to transfer the executive documentation and failure to confirm the volume of work performed. At the same time, the subsequent submission by the Plaintiff of the act of work performed signed by the parties was committed by the opponent with procedural violations. As a result, the Moscow District Arbitration Court agreed with the position of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” and refused to satisfy the contractor’s complaint. The interests of the Principal were represented by Maria Ovchinnikova, Head of the Department of Legal Support of Contractual and Judicial Work of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.