The Jusguards' lawyers decided to file a lawsuit in court seeking debt collection. Hereafter was submitted secondary claim seeking levy of execution on debtor part in common share ownership, as it hadn’t been found funds or movable property due to which it would have been possible to abide by the court's decision on debt collection.
To return money given by the client on credit considering interest, losses caused by inflation and 3per cent per anum.
Due to real risk of debtor share alienation from the common share ownership and levy of execution on it the debtor willingly has paid total debt amount considering interest, losses caused by the inflation and 3per cent per anum. Total recovery sum was 940,000 UAH.
The lawyers of Jusguard noted that materials of the inspection contain many faults leveling the conclusions of the inspection. Also, so-called violations established during the inspection do not reflect reality. All these circumstances together admitted to prove complete frivolousness of the claim of the controlling body.
To prevent satisfaction of the claim and stop of the construction.
The claim of the controlling body was disallowed.
In the course of a judicial proceeding the apartment was arrested with the aim to prevent its further sale. Then, having studied evidences provided by the lawyers of the Company, the court sustained a case. It declared the Sale and Purchase Agreement illegitimate, as well as declared the plaintiff’s proprietary right to the apartment.
To grant the client of the Company the title to the apartment that was alienated formerly.
The Sale and Purchase Agreement was canceled, and the proprietary right to the apartment was assigned to the client of our Company. The judgment came into legal force.
The lawyers of the company have laid two actions: the first one (on acknowledgement the re-registration of the car into another person as illegal) into administrative court, and the second (on declaration of proprietary right of the company’s client to the car) into the court of general jurisdiction. The lawyers of the company proved reasonability of demands of the relief and legality of acts of the State Automobile Inspectorate (SAI) employees in the course of a judicial proceeding.
To acknowledge the re-registration of the car as illegal.
The acts of SAI on re-registration of the car were acknowledged as illegal.
The title of the company’s client to the car was established.
The registration of the car in favor of the client was re-established.