May 13 Main results of the day

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the court of first instance to resolve disagreements regarding the price of privatization of non-residential premises, by which the price of the property purchased by the Principal was reduced by 25 million rubles.

In support of the appeal, the municipal authority indicated that when determining the market price of the property, the court of first instance did not fully check the expert’s opinion for compliance with current legislation. The Bureau’s lawyers managed to convince the panel of judges that there were no violations, both in the procedural procedure for appointing the expert examination and in the expert’s conclusion itself as evidence, and therefore the decision of the court of first instance was left unchanged.

The interests of the Principal were represented by Dan Khorolets, lawyer from the practice of resolving economic disputes.

The Court of Appeal rejected the complaint of the Government of Moscow and the DGI in the case of the claim against the Principal for the demolition of a building with an area of more than 1.9 thousand square meters. In support of the complaint, government agencies referred to the fact that the land under the building was not provided for construction purposes and the building itself was erected without any documentation.

During the dispute, Rashid Gitinov, Head of the practice of resolving disputes with government bodies, managed to defend the position in two courts that the building was built in full compliance with the legislation in force during the construction of the facility, presenting convincing evidence obtained from the Main Archives of Moscow.

Rashid also proved the fact that the statute of limitations had passed, which, taking into account the results of the forensic examination that there was no threat to the life and health of citizens, is an independent basis for refusing the claim.

As a result, the courts recognized the demands made by government bodies as unfounded and rejected them in full.

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first instance court to fully recover in favor of the Principal the debt in the amount of 28 million rubles under the supply agreement.

In support of the complaint, the Defendant indicated that the court of first instance needed to reduce the amount of the accrued penalty due to its obvious disproportion to the consequences of the violation of obligations. The Bureau’s lawyers managed to convince the panel of judges that the amount of the penalty was proportionate to the consequences of the Defendant’s violation of obligations, pointing out that the Defendant had not proven the economic indicators that were the basis for such a reduction.

The interests of the Principal were represented by Dan Khorolets, lawyer from the practice of resolving economic disputes.

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal changed the decision of the first instance court to collect the penalty under the supply agreement from the counterparty in favor of the Principal and increased the collected amount of debt by 3 times.

Based on the results of the judicial work in the court of first instance, the Defendant voluntarily paid the amount of the principal debt, so the court decided only to collect a penalty, but gave an incorrect interpretation to the terms of the agreement on limiting the liability of business entities.

The Bureau’s lawyers managed to convince the panel of appellate judges that this condition was incorrectly interpreted by the court of first instance and thereby increase the amount of the penalty by 3 times.

The interests of the Principal were represented by Dan Khorolets, lawyer from the practice of resolving economic disputes.

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the court of first instance to refuse to recover unjustified enrichment (advance payments) under the supply agreement from the Principal of the Bureau. The opponent referred to the alleged non-delivery of a batch of medical products agreed upon by the parties, pointing out the presence of shortcomings that prevented their use for their intended purpose. The Bureau’s Principal, on the contrary, did not agree with the opponent’s refusal of the contract and filed a counterclaim for the collection of arrears in payment for goods in the amount of 5 million rubles, which was fully satisfied by the court. The panel of judges of the Court of Appeal carefully studied the case materials, got acquainted with the arguments of the complaint and upheld the earlier decision.

The interests of the Principal were represented by Yakov Prisyazhnyuk, Head of the practice of resolving economic disputes of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal upheld the judicial act of the Moscow Arbitration Court on the collection of a debt of more than 50 million rubles in favor of the Principal.

By the decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court, the Principal’s claims for the collection in his favor of not only a debt of more than 50 million rubles, but also interest on the actual date of repayment of the debt, as well as foreclosure on the collateral, were satisfied. The debtor filed an appeal with reference to the incorrect calculation of interest under the agreement and the lack of the Principal’s right to collect an increased interest. As a result of preparing a position on the appeal with references to legislation and the terms of the contract, it was possible to prove that the calculation of interest was correct.

The interests of the Principal were represented by M.M. Nikolaenko, Head of the practice of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.