Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 13 November 2012 № 9007/12 in the case The company SABMiller RUS vs The company “Aleksandrit” et al.
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether a dispute arising out of a lease contract which was secured by suretyship of a natural person, not having the status of individual entrepreneur, may fall nonetheless within the jurisdiction of commercial courts?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 13 November 2012 № 7454/12 in the case Citizen Komissarov vs The company “A family itelmen commune Haiko” et al.
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: the legality of a potestative condition precedent in a contract of sale of a share in a limited liability company, according to which in case of the purchaser’s failure to timely pay a full price for the share the contract shall be repudiated and corresponding obligations shall terminate.
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 6 November 2012 № 9127/12 in the case Timofeev, the bankruptcy trustee of the company “Trading house Vega” vs M.Suturin, the acting director of the company “Trading house Vega”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether fault of general director of a company is a necessary precondition for holding him subsidiarily liable for the debts of the company, as envisaged by the Bankruptcy Law in case of his failure to convey the accounting documentation to the bankruptcy trustee?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 30 October 2012 № 8035/12 in the case The Department of Town Planning and Architecture of the City of Perm vs the Federal Bureau for Technical Supervision
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Points of law: 1) may a court refuse to affirm an amicable agreement which contains conditions not related to the dispute at hand? 2) whether court should issue a separate ruling in the event of such refusal?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 23 October 2012 № 7508/12 in the case Citizen Ivanov et al. vs The company “Sibtechgaz”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: the possibility to provide in company’s internal regulations for additional requirements to candidate directors (members of the board).
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 23 October 2012 № 7805/12 in the case The company “Fringilla Co. LTD” vs The company “Rybprominvest” et al.
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: legal factors on which depends the possibility of recognition and execution of a foreign (specifically, a Cypriot) court decision concerning a transaction under Russian law and between Russian legal entities.
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 9 October 2012 № 6499/12 in the case The company “Chimagropromtorg” vs The state scientific institution “Elets experiment station for potato”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether the term for submission of cassational complaint in electronic form has been missed, given that the complaint came into the personal account of the user (a party to proceedings) on the final day provided by law for submitting it to cassational court, but the court has actually received it on the next day only?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 9 October 2012 № 9847/11 in the case The company “TGK № 2” vs The company “ZhEU ZAVremstroy”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether the person who succeeded in receiving a court decision which prescribes the review of the case on the basis of new or newly discovered circumstances may claim from the opposite party the reimbursement of his expenses for court representation?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 9 October 2012 № 7628/12 in the case Citizen Korneev et al. vs Uniastrum Bank
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether it is possible to institute a group action under Chapter 28.2 of the Commercial Procedure Code, if the plaintiff and the persons, in whose interests he files a suit, are not participants of the same legal relation, because their demands as to the recovery of losses are based on independent contracts, the losses differ in terms of their amounts and composition, and the plaintiff lacks the status of individual entrepreneur?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court of 8 October 2012 № 62 “On Certain Issues of Consideration by Commercial Courts of Cases in Simplified Procedure”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court of 8 October 2012 № 61 “On the Ensuring of Transparency in Commercial Proceedings”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court of 8 October 2012 № 58 “On Certain Issues of the Practice of Application of the Federal Law “On Advertising” by Commercial Courts”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court № 59 and Judgment of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court № 60 of 8 October 2012
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Both judgments elucidate the issues connected to the creation of the Court for Intellectual Property Rights within the system of commercial courts.
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 2 October 2012 № 6272/12 in the case The company “Prigranichie” vs The Company “Vostok-Avto-Bir”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: admissibility of the plaintiff’s argument that respondent’s vehicles could not cross the border of the Russian Federation without using the transportation facilities belonging to the plaintiff.
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 2 October 2012 № 6040/12 in the case The company “Vítkovice Power Engineering” vs BinBank
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether guarantor (a bank) may refuse paying to the beneficiary under bank guarantee with reference to the fact that the principal failed to perform his contractual duty of returning advance payments to the beneficiary due to reasons which evolved without principal’s fault.
Subject areas:
Have you spotted a typo?
Highlight it, click Ctrl+Enter and send us a message. Thank you for your help!
To be used only for spelling or punctuation mistakes.