Arbitration courtsthe Supreme Arbitration Court has partially satisfied the protest of the assistant to the General public prosecutor of Russia Nikolay Shakleina under the claim of Joshkar - Olinsky design - building association to board of the organisation of tenants of Joshkar - Olinsky industrial complex of bakeries about floor space allocation.
according to the contract between the parties from February, 22nd, 1991 the industrial complex of bakeries was obliged to transfer to the claimant of 10 % of a floor space in the house placed in operation on Panfilov`s street in Joshkar - Ole. But when the house has been constructed, the industrial complex has refused to allocate to association the promised apartments and has declared that has wrongly included this condition in the contract.
the arbitration court of republic of Mary El has refused to association the claim “ about objazanii industrial complex to give it a floor space according to the contract “. The State Office of Public Prosecutor has protested this decision. Having considered the protest, the board under the chairmanship of Michael Juhneja recognised the contract lawful and has cancelled the decision of inferior court on refusal in the claim. And as the parties have not presented documents on actual settling of the house on Panfilov`s street the court did not begin to demand from industrial complex to give apartment to the claimant in this house. The way of execution by industrial complex of the obligations will define Mary El`s arbitration court to which this business is directed on new consideration.
the appeal All-Russia scientifically - research institute of the knitted industry on the decision on partial satisfaction of the claim Central scientifically - research institute of the woollen industry (TSNIIsherst) to the State Property Committee of Russia and aforementioned institute of the knitted industry is rejected. TSNIIsherst asked to nullify the transaction of the repayment institute of the knitted industry of a nine-floor industrial building (d. 3 along the street Small Semenovsky) which part occupies TSNIIsherst.
Court of the first instance the prisoner with the State Property Committee has nullified the contract on the repayment of property of knitted institute regarding the office accommodations actually occupied with institute TsNiIsherst (5172 ì2), and also parts of premises of the general using. The knitted institute has made the complaint to this decision. In the complaint he has informed that has redeemed a disputable building lawfully (the repayment right has been stipulated in the prisoner with the State Property Committee the lease contract). And property rights TSNIIshersti, according to the applicant, have not been broken, as anybody did not move it. In the complaint it was told also about impossibility “ to divide in nature “ between two institutes of a premise of the general using.
cassation board (the chairman Olga Kozlova) has considered these arguments unreasonable, having upheld the decision on satisfaction of the claim.
the Moscow arbitration court has refused the claim to institutes Giprostrojmost and Giprotransmost to institute Mosgiprotrans.
In 1974 the state has transferred to all three arguing institutes a building along the street Pavel Korchagina, the house 2. After all Russian property has passed to the State Property Committee, the building has been entirely transferred Mosgiprotransu who owned before bolshej its part. Other two institutes which have demanded have disagreed with it to leave behind them occupied before the area. The Moskomimuschestvo which has obliged Mosgiprotrans to transfer to balance of institutes - claimants disputable premises was connected to dispute. In words Mosgiprotrans has agreed with it, but documentary yet has not issued. Besides, Giprostrojmost and Giprotransmost demand to divide the general premises (a lobby, a dining room, etc.) To proportionally areas occupied with institutes separately. At session representative Mosgiprotransa managed to prove that documents on transfer of the disputable areas are already transferred institutes - to claimants, but they why - that do not sign them, and have legal proceedings. Therefore the court has refused the claim.
consideration of the claim of the municipal enterprise " is postponed; Development “ to factory on repair and furniture manufacturing #1 “ mosgormebel “ about eviction.
“ development “ rented at Moskomimuschestvo a part of the ground floor of a building on Krasnogvardejsky parkway, the house 7, a structure 1. In the inquiry which has been given out “ to Development “ in it is repair - operational management, appeared that the area is empty. However, when the claimant has come to occupy a premise, “ Development “ has found out on all ground floor administration “ mosgormebeli “ which has refused to be moved.
At session the representative of factory could not give any explanations to behaviour of the administration and present the documents requested by court. He has explained it to that shortly before session “ where - that the director of factory " was gone; which in the safe has all documents. The court to it on it has noticed that the director “ was gone “ more recently, and business is accepted to manufacture several months ago. But has put all - taki has postponed.
it is refused the claim to small enterprise “ Veda “ to private enterprise “ Ursus AT “ on 442 thousand rbl.
Between the parties the contract, on which " has been concluded; Ursus AT “ was obliged to construct for “ Vedy “ the two-storeyed house in Moscow suburbs. Advance payment - 138 thousand rbl., then 45 thousand rbl. more " has been for this purpose listed; Veda “ Asserts that works were carried out badly, therefore it has terminated the contract unilaterally and has demanded to return an advance payment and numerous penalties. However to the representative “ Ursus AT “ it was possible to prove that works were carried out according to the contract. As he said, in failure of the schedule of works it is guilty “ Veda “ which without permission “ Ursus AT “ has dug a well in a cellar of an under construction building. This certificate has completely paralysed building.
the arbitration court of Petersburg and area has refused the claim of the organisation of tenants of mechanical factory to co-operative society “ metallist “ about a recognition void the lease contract.
on March, 27th, 1990 the co-operative society rented at factory of a part of floor spaces, a part of the administrative case of factory and territory adjoining to it. After a while the organisation of tenants of mechanical factory began to demand cancellation of this contract. Tenants asserted that the co-operative society does not satisfy the conditions stipulated in the lease contract (does not participate in industrial activity of factory, and, besides, hands over the premises transferred to it in subrent).
Representatives of co-operative society “ metallist “ recognised that in 1991 they have concluded with co-operative society “ the Camellia “ the contract on joint activity on which have transferred to co-operative society “ the Camellia “ a premise part zavodoupravlenija - 3 - j a floor, warehouse on 1 floor and adjoining territories. However they have presented the letter of mechanical factory from September, 9th, 1991 in which it is said that “ the factory does not object to the conclusion of the contract on joint activity about co-operative society ` the Camellia ` with granting to it of premises “. Besides, in court it was found out that co-operative society “ metallist “ should carry out manufacture for mechanical factory only in case of granting to it of raw materials. And raw materials to it did not give. The court has refused the claim, having established that “ metallist “ has not broken provisions of the lease.