Bank24.ru insists on handwriting examination
19 January 2010 (10:34)
Sverdlovsk Region Arbitration Court is to hold a session on Bank24.ru vs. UralTransBank on February 10, 2010.
The plaintiff insists on being paid 40,031,667 RUR worth of debt resulting from a number of promissory notes (096441, 096638, 096445, and 096640) issued by UralTransBank on July 27, 2009. The notes are to be paid on demand but no earlier than October 27, 2009. What is more, the plaintiff claims some interest should be paid for the period from October 27, 2009 to October 30, 2009 and then further on till the day the court’s ruling has been made.
Marketinvest, OOO Estate, and OOO Specter are involved in the case as third parties.
At the court’s last meeting, Bank24.ru asked the court to demand that UralTransBank produce an inspection act that was carried out by the Central Bank of Russia’s Sverdlovsk Region division in November 2009. Bank24.ru believes the inspection was aimed at checking the defendant’s promissory note-issuing procedure. The plaintiff also wants UralTransBank to present its internal code on how the promissory note forms must be stored and/or destroyed.
The court partially agreed with the plaintiff’s demands and is going to apply to the Central Bank of Russia’s Sverdlovsk Region division in order to get a copy of the inspection act section related to UralTransBank’s promissory note forms handling policy. The court will also ask for information regarding the authorities of UralTransBank Supervisory Board Member and Director of the bank’s Nizhniy Tagil subsidiary Pavel Mukhachev over the case-related time period.
Meanwhile, UralTransBank keeps saying the promissory notes can’t be authentic because Pavel Mukhachev was not in the legal position to sign any notes on the date the disputed promissory notes were signed.
The plaintiff insists on being paid 40,031,667 RUR worth of debt resulting from a number of promissory notes (096441, 096638, 096445, and 096640) issued by UralTransBank on July 27, 2009. The notes are to be paid on demand but no earlier than October 27, 2009. What is more, the plaintiff claims some interest should be paid for the period from October 27, 2009 to October 30, 2009 and then further on till the day the court’s ruling has been made.
Marketinvest, OOO Estate, and OOO Specter are involved in the case as third parties.
At the court’s last meeting, Bank24.ru asked the court to demand that UralTransBank produce an inspection act that was carried out by the Central Bank of Russia’s Sverdlovsk Region division in November 2009. Bank24.ru believes the inspection was aimed at checking the defendant’s promissory note-issuing procedure. The plaintiff also wants UralTransBank to present its internal code on how the promissory note forms must be stored and/or destroyed.
The court partially agreed with the plaintiff’s demands and is going to apply to the Central Bank of Russia’s Sverdlovsk Region division in order to get a copy of the inspection act section related to UralTransBank’s promissory note forms handling policy. The court will also ask for information regarding the authorities of UralTransBank Supervisory Board Member and Director of the bank’s Nizhniy Tagil subsidiary Pavel Mukhachev over the case-related time period.
Meanwhile, UralTransBank keeps saying the promissory notes can’t be authentic because Pavel Mukhachev was not in the legal position to sign any notes on the date the disputed promissory notes were signed.
 | Embed to Blog |  | Subscribe to Newsletter |  |