Iset Construction Company Stops Claim against Ural Exhibition Center
29 February 2012 (09:25)
Iset Construction Company decided not to appeal in court against the ruling regarding the company’s claim to Ural Exhibition Center.
Sverdlovsk Region Arbitration Court partially sustained Iset Construction Company’s claim earlier; the claim involved Ural Exhibition Center as the defendant and Rusgrad Construction Company as a third party in the case. The plaintiff insisted on being paid 246.28m RUR by the defendant. In the end, the court ruled that 245.94m should be paid.
The sum in question was the debt owed by the defendant to the plaintiff for the building and assembly jobs at International Exhibition Center’s first extension.
According to the court files, the plaintiff contacted the defendant, demanding that the jobs be paid for, but the defendant refused to do so because allegedly no legal relations existed between the two businesses.
‘The defendant’s argumentation in this regard cannot be considered by the court, as the case files available and the parties’ correspondence both prove that the said jobs had been completed by the plaintiff upon the defendant’s request. The reasons the latter gives to avoid paying for the jobs whose cost comes to 245,262,577.57 RUR are poorly grounded,’ the court ruled.
The construction company placed a notice of appeals against this ruling at first, but later decided not to go through with it.
Sverdlovsk Region Arbitration Court partially sustained Iset Construction Company’s claim earlier; the claim involved Ural Exhibition Center as the defendant and Rusgrad Construction Company as a third party in the case. The plaintiff insisted on being paid 246.28m RUR by the defendant. In the end, the court ruled that 245.94m should be paid.
The sum in question was the debt owed by the defendant to the plaintiff for the building and assembly jobs at International Exhibition Center’s first extension.
According to the court files, the plaintiff contacted the defendant, demanding that the jobs be paid for, but the defendant refused to do so because allegedly no legal relations existed between the two businesses.
‘The defendant’s argumentation in this regard cannot be considered by the court, as the case files available and the parties’ correspondence both prove that the said jobs had been completed by the plaintiff upon the defendant’s request. The reasons the latter gives to avoid paying for the jobs whose cost comes to 245,262,577.57 RUR are poorly grounded,’ the court ruled.
The construction company placed a notice of appeals against this ruling at first, but later decided not to go through with it.
 | Embed to Blog |  | Subscribe to Newsletter |  |