Document from CIS Legislation database © 2003-2024 SojuzPravoInform LLC


of January 27, 2005 No. 4


The bases to change or cancellation of the decision, resolution according to the procedure of supervision are illegality or groundlessness of court resolution.

The claimant - JV I filed B economic court the action for declaration about exception of defendants - the companies: "A" and "M" from the shareholder register and recognition of the property right to shares 33 in number of 27496 pieces for JV I.

Claims are satisfied by the judgment, defendants are excluded from the shareholder register and for the claimant the property right to shares of defendants in number of 27496 pieces at par value of one share - 1095 bags is recognized.

In appeal and cassation instances case was not considered.

In protest the question of cancellation of the judgment and adoption of the new decision on refusal in satisfaction of claims is put.

Presidium, having discussed protest arguments, having studied case papers, considers necessary protest to satisfy partially, to cancel the judgment and to send case for new trial on the following bases.

From case papers it is seen that the Joint-stock company "P" was transformed on April 25, 2003 to the joint Uzbekskoamerikansky company "I" in the form of open joint stock company. The authorized capital of the joint venture is determined in the amount of 173158920 bags, the number of placed shares - 158136 pieces. The share of A overseas enterprise constituted % 7,5 (11862 shares), "M" - % 9,8 (15634 shares).

Joint business repeatedly convened general shareholder meetings where the above-stated shareholders of participation did not accept.

The claimant - JV I, considering that nonparticipation of the above-stated investors on general meetings interferes with activities of joint-stock company, appealed to economic court with the requirement about exception of the companies "A" and "M" of the shareholder register and recognition of the property right to shares of defendants in number of 27496 pieces for JV I.

The Trial Court in case of satisfaction of claims referred to Art. 187 of the Civil code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, having specified that person who is not the owner of property, but it is fair, openly and continuously owning it as own property within five years, acquires the property right to this property.

However, the court does not find out where there were shares of defendants from the moment of their acquisition and how the claimant owned them.

Besides, the court specified that the claimant continuously held shares of defendants within five years, however, within what five years there was this ownership, i.e. specifically since what moment of the share were in ownership of the claimant not is established.

In the judgment it is specified that the defendant since 1998 systematically does not participate at general shareholder meetings and it deprives society of opportunity to make decisions on the questions requiring participation of the defendant. But from the decision it is not clear about what of defendants there is a speech as defendants in case are two legal entities - the "A" and "M" companies.

In the decision it is also noted that JV I repeatedly addressed defendants letters of September 7 and 16, 1999, on February 12, 2000, on January 20 and on September 14, 2001, on April 22, 2004, but answers that the "A" and "M" companies to the specified addresses do not exist are received from international post of "A". In case papers there is letter of March 13, 2001 of the director of specialized mail service of ASE A. that to the address "P" the company "A" does not exist. Also the letter is filed And. that to the address "2 d" mister of A. does not work. The court does not pay attention that in the letter And. of March 30, 2001 it is not about absence to this address of the legal entity - the company "M", and that mister of A. to this address does not work.

The above-stated letters are accepted by Trial Court as the proofs confirming the fact of absence of defendants in the above-stated addresses, however, reliability of these proofs is not checked. The fact of availability or absence of defendants in registers of legal entities, and also to the above-stated addresses is not established through the relevant competent state bodies of these foreign states.

The above demonstrates incomplete clarification of all facts of the case that led to acceptance of unreasoned decision.

According to p.1 Art. 200 of HPK of the Republic of Uzbekistan the bases to cancellation of the judgment according to the procedure of supervision are illegality or groundlessness of court resolution.

In case of new trial of case the court needs to find out all above facts of the case, to provide participation in case of the parties, comprehensive and complete investigation of proofs and acceptance of legal and reasoned decision.


Disclaimer! This text was translated by AI translator and is not a valid juridical document. No warranty. No claim. More info

Effectively work with search system

Database include more 50000 documents. You can find needed documents using search system. For effective work you can mix any on documents parameters: country, documents type, date range, teams or tags.
More about search system

Get help

If you cannot find the required document, or you do not know where to begin, go to Help section.

In this section, we’ve tried to describe in detail the features and capabilities of the system, as well as the most effective techniques for working with the database.

You also may open the section Frequently asked questions. This section provides answers to questions set by users.

Search engine created by SoyuzPravoInform LLC.