RUS
 Up
YUST  /  Press-center  /  Media

In its resolution of 2 March 2006, the Ninth Arbitration Appeals Court revoked the ruling of the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow of 27 December 2005, and left the ruling of the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow of 21 April 2005 on the same m

09.03.2006

OJSC “DAR” and LLC “Trigger” (currently – LLC “Kopeyka Development”) executed a purchase-sale agreement for a non-residential building. Subsequently, OJSC “DAR” filed a claim against LLC “Kopeyka Development” with the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow, calling for the acknowledgement of the indicated purchase-sale agreement as invalid. In its decision of 21 April 2005, the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow refused to satisfy the demands filed by OJSC “DAR.”

However, OJSC “DAR” applied to the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow for a review of this decision in view of the emergence of new circumstances, and on 27 December 2005, the court ruled in favor of satisfying the demands of the indicated application and the revocation of the decision of 21 April 2005. As newly emerged circumstances, namely – those relevant to the matter and previously unknown to the claimant, OJSC indicated the court decisions concerning the acknowledgement as invalid of the decisions of the managerial bodies of OJSC “DAR” regarding the approval of the disputed agreement and the appointment of the general director, who signed the above-mentioned agreement.

LLC “Kopeyka Development” refused to accept the arguments of the court of the first instance, and filed a complaint against the ruling of the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow of 27 December 2005 with the Ninth Arbitration Appeals Court of the City of Moscow.

In the course of the consideration of the dispute, the attorneys of the law firm “YUST”, representing the interests of LLC “Kopeyka Development”, pointed out that the circumstances on which OJSC “DAR” based its case were irrelevant to the matter, insofar as they could not result in a review of the matter, and should have been known to the claimant, as the company does not have the right to claim that it was unaware of the factual circumstances of the activities of its bodies, including the circumstances in which they made decisions.

The Ninth Arbitration Appeals Court accepted the arguments presented by “YUST attorneys, and by its resolution of 2 March 2006 revoked the decision of the court of the first instance of 27 December 2005, and dismissed the application filed by OJSC “DAR” for a review of the decision of 21 April 2005 in the light of newly emerged circumstances.


Back to list