Document from CIS Legislation database © 2003-2020 SojuzPravoInform LLC

RESOLUTION OF THE PLENUM OF THE SUPREME ECONOMIC COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN

of August 9, 1996 No. 58

About court practice on the disputes connected with monetary commitments

Having considered materials of the overview of court practice on the disputes connected with monetary commitments, the Supreme Economic Court prepared by judicial board according to the dispute resolution, the Plenum, being guided by Art. 46 of the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan "About courts", decides:

1. To take the overview of court practice on the disputes connected with monetary commitments into consideration.

2. Send the overview of court practice on the disputes connected with monetary commitments to economic courts of the Republic of Karakalpakstan and the areas of the Republic of Uzbekistan.

 

Chairman

Supreme Economic Court

Republic of Uzbekistan

 

 

M. Abdusalamov

Secretary Plenuma,

judge of the Supreme Economic Court

Republic of Uzbekistan

 

 

I. Sobirov

The overview of court practice on the disputes connected with monetary commitments

According to the work plan of the Supreme Economic Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan on the second half of 1996 the judicial board according to the dispute resolution together with courts of areas studied and generalized court practice of hearing of cases on the disputes connected with monetary commitments.

For the first half of the year 1996 economic courts of the Republic of Uzbekistan 5123 cases, from them 3068 cases on the disputes connected with payments for goods and services (liabilities) are authorized.

By areas these indicators look as follows:

Andijan - all it is considered cases 275, from them by calculations - 95, Bukhara - 391/114, Jizzakh - 272/185, Kashkadarya - 196/75, Navoiy - 161/70, Namangan - 266/103, Samarkand - 410/280, Syr Darya - 374/229, Surkhandarya - 315/248, of Ferganskaya415/91, Tashkent - 1000/620, Khorezm - 204/112, the Republic of Karakalpakstan - 671/624, the Supreme Economic Court - 341/299 cases.

Studying of cases on calculations showed that the considerable specific weight of cases of this category in total quantity of the disputes resolved by economic courts is explained in many respects by slow adaptation of subjects of managing to market conditions, improper execution of contractual commitments, rejection of exhaustive measures to collection of receivables, abuses of regulations on settlement and financial transactions by banks, inability of business entities to pay timely for products, goods, services due to the lack of money on accounts, and also other reasons.

Results of generalization of cases show that emergence of such disputes is in many respects caused by the low-quality conclusion of agreements, lack in them of the conditions aimed at providing obligations assumed by the parties, procedure for application of measures of responsibility.

So, in the claim of the Khorezm merging of breeding shelkovodchesky cooperatives for collection of 761200 bags from Sokhibkor kolkhoz of Shavatsky district in judicial session it was determined that according to the agreement consolidation owed deliver to Sokhibkor kolkhoz of mulberry saplings on the amount of 30700 bags of quantity 20000 pieces. In the agreement it is also fixed that in case of inopportuneness of payment the Sokhibkor kolkhoz for each day of delay pays to the claimant 10% of the specified amount. Due to the untimely payment consolidation made the recovery suit of 761200 sum of penalty fee. In judicial session it was determined that in the agreement the payment date specifically was not specified, obligation on payment was it is assigned by agreement of the parties to the third party - Shavatsky district silk which had accounts payable to the buyer. Taking into account that the agreement was constituted hastily and did not contain essential conditions, based on the Art. of the Art. 172, of 288-289, 293 groups of companies the agreement was acknowledged unconcluded, and was refused satisfaction of claims.

The frivolous relation of heads to the conclusion of agreements, misunderstanding of importance and effects of the penalties provided in the agreement often leads to unjustified losses, non-productive costs. So, for example, PMK-2 signed the contract with Samarkandsovkhozvodstroy trust. In the claim the amount of principal debt constituted 245000 sum, and sanctions under the agreement are provided in the amount of 420000 sum. The court collected the sanction amount as between the parties the terms of the contract providing enslaving sanctions are on a voluntary basis signed.

In present conditions, for the purpose of timely receipt of payments for products and services the procedure for carrying out calculations by "advance payment", i.e. transfer of the amounts by payment orders before shipment of goods was changed. The presidential decree of the Republic of May 12, 1995 prohibits to business entities leave of products, performance of works and services to consumers without advance payment in the amount of at least 15% of cost of delivered goods. Despite categoriality of such specifying, the company continue to ship products, to render services without advance payment. So, after release of the decree Hadros delivered goods to the Urgench rayvodkhoz without advance payment of 15% of cost, further it turned out that the defendant cannot pay the goods cost because he is on card-index. And if the claimant before sending goods demanded to make advance payment of its cost, he would already have idea of solvency of the partner and would hardly ship to it the products.

Cases when business entities in case of the conclusion of agreements are not convinced of capability of the partners are frequent to fulfill the assumed obligations.

For example, the Bukhara regional company for providing with oil products, without having convinced of opportunities of the partner, signed the contract with private trade product company "Dilya" for delivery of pipes and other metal products for total amount about 3 million bags. However obligations assumed under the agreement are not fulfilled by Dilya and amount of debt is not returned.

The analysis of the cases considered by courts shows that the level of performing discipline of the companies and organizations for accomplishment of the signed agreements is still low. Some heads mistakenly believe that undertaken obligations can and be not performed without any effects.

Warning!!!

This is not a full text of document! Document shown in Demo mode!

If you have active License, please Login, or get License for Full Access.

With Full access you can get: full text of document, original text of document in Russian, attachments (if exist) and see History and Statistics of your work.

Get License for Full Access Now

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 40000 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 SojuzPravoInform LLC. UI/UX design by Intelliants.