In the building conflict have appeared “ pseudo-shareholders “
the Company « Inkost » has submitted to arbitration court the claim on one of the contractors. Really in Petersburg again will begin « wars of the deceived shareholders »?
About business details has told the legal representative of the company « Inkost » Galina Mirnaja.
- In what all - taki a dispute essence between the company « Inkost » and its contractor?
- In 2007 we have concluded the turnkey contract with the company « the Monolith ». Object of building - the third case of a building to the address: the Kolomjazhsky prospectus, the house 28, the case 3. By the time of the contract conclusion the base was already partially ready. Under the contract the customer pays off with the contractor after will satisfy all conditions of the contract. And half of cost of works was paid by money, and other half - apartments, I will underline, at reduced price.
In the end 2009 « the Monolith » began to demand payment of works which are not executed or executed partially. Unexpectedly the company has at all suspended works, and then has left from building, without having completed a part of the paid services and without having paid off with subcontractors.
- Therefore « Inkost » also has gone to arbitration court?
- And what it was necessary to do? After all it was necessary to search for new contractors who undertake elimination of subquality work « the Monolith ». From - for it the house have handed over for eight months later, and « Inkost » has incurred contingencies. We have been urged to pay works of contractors which quickly corrected subquality work « the Monolith ». It was required to be spent for the maintenance of the house and corresponding services, on rent of the ground area, service of the organisations supplying a building site by power resources. From negotiations representatives « the Monolith » evaded. Therefore also it was necessary to submit the claim with the requirement to compensate a damage from the left unfinished works and the expenses connected with a delay of terms of delivery of object.
Arbitration court of St.-Petersburg and Leningrad region has satisfied the claim, recognising our requirements lawful, and in April of this year Arbitration court the second instance has proved the made decision. The judicial certificate has entered validity, but lost court the contractor to compensate us a damage does not hurry up.
- As there were questions at issue with shareholders?
- the Builder, paying off for the performed works, concluded with « the Monolith » individual share contracts on apartments. It should pass after the building termination. At the conclusion of such contract of the party meant that further « the Monolith » decided to pass apartment to other person, it will be converted to the builder with the request for renewal of the rights of a concession on them. Reception of the preliminary written coordination with « Inkostom » about a cedation of apartments was the important condition registered in everyone the individual share contract, as « the Monolith » received apartment from the builder not on market, and at reduced price.
- How to be that who became the shareholder at « the Monolith »?
- When we began to carry on negotiations with buyers, was suddenly found out that among them is and « pseudo-shareholders ». Only five persons, under our data, have really concluded the contract with the company. About thirteen more shareholders we have learnt only in civil court. We consider that contracts with them have concluded to submit statements of claim about a recognition of the property right to apartments in a judicial order.
- Galina why you think, what thirteen shareholders is a fiction?
- In - the first, those first five buyers about whom I already spoke, we anyhow saw and we know. Three from them already lives in the apartments in the constructed house, only issue them in the property cannot from - for the conflict with « the Monolith ». And others thirteen it is not visible and it is not audible. And even in court where they have gone to protect the rights, to us to meet them it is not possible: their interests are represented by the lawyer. Moreover, the representative « Monolith » which should protect interests of the shareholders, on a broader scale has ceased to be in court. I will specify: in district court are considered claims of shareholders, and in arbitration - dispute between the contractor and the customer.
- And how to be to real shareholders?
- As to five buyers known to us we will make everything that their rights have not been broken also apartments remained behind them. We have suggested people to conclude the contract of gratuitous using. They only will pay utilities.
If it will appear that at « the Monolith » there is not enough means for compensation « Inkostu » a damage under the judgement, even in this case apartments at lawful shareholders will not select.