Premises at Suvorov Business Center Disputed in Court
23 May 2012 (09:19)
Sverdlovsk Region Arbitration Court set the hearing of OOO Riada vs. OOO Barkas for June 8, 2012.
The plaintiff placed a claim with the court, demanding that Barkas provide the company with the documentation necessary to establish ownership rights over certain premises in accordance with the existing contract, namely, a proof of full payment for the premises (which serve as the object of investment under an agreement dated February 19, 2008), a proof of no financial claims over the premises, and the transfer act.
The premises in question are located on the 12th floor of The Count Orloff Office Center (now known as Suvorov Business Center) at the intersection of Radishchev St and Vainer St in Yekaterinburg.
Prior to taking above-mentioned actions, Riada tried to make sure that Barkas is forbidden to perform any transactions involving these premises and hand the papers necessary to establish ownership rights over certain premises to third parties and that Sverdlovsk Region division of Federal Registration Service is forbidden to register any ownership rights over the premises. The plaintiff claimed that failure to provide such preventive measures would make the implementation of the court’s ruling very difficult, if not altogether impossible.
The court rejected Riada’s petition to this extent.
The plaintiff placed a claim with the court, demanding that Barkas provide the company with the documentation necessary to establish ownership rights over certain premises in accordance with the existing contract, namely, a proof of full payment for the premises (which serve as the object of investment under an agreement dated February 19, 2008), a proof of no financial claims over the premises, and the transfer act.
The premises in question are located on the 12th floor of The Count Orloff Office Center (now known as Suvorov Business Center) at the intersection of Radishchev St and Vainer St in Yekaterinburg.
Prior to taking above-mentioned actions, Riada tried to make sure that Barkas is forbidden to perform any transactions involving these premises and hand the papers necessary to establish ownership rights over certain premises to third parties and that Sverdlovsk Region division of Federal Registration Service is forbidden to register any ownership rights over the premises. The plaintiff claimed that failure to provide such preventive measures would make the implementation of the court’s ruling very difficult, if not altogether impossible.
The court rejected Riada’s petition to this extent.
 | Embed to Blog |  | Subscribe to Newsletter |  |