Novosibirsk regional court

I the representative of the plaintiff Povarentsev Sergey sent an appeal against the decision of the Kirovsky district court on the suit against the chairman of the so-called Ventilatsionnik Stolbovoy NS. The judges of the regional court heard quietly during the appeal process, which I could not hear. I was not allowed to speak, they only listened to the defendant, who this time did not speak the truth either. In case 2-1323-2018 the figures on which the plaintiff relied were marked. The number of members from the protocol at the time of the opening of the meeting was 150, 79 were elected for the opening, including 13 people who were admitted to membership by the same assembly. They did not have the right to vote for the opening of the meeting. The judge agreed with this. But he began at each regular meeting to reduce the number of members listed on the list and bring the number of people in the partnership to the right time for the opening of the meeting. There was no register at the first meeting (there was a list). Number of members with each meeting decreased. There were 150, then 150, again 150, then 143 and at the last 125. And in the list of payers for accounting and accountant's testimony there were 162 people. But the judges of the regional court considered on their application, only the materials of the case of the district court and left our application without satisfaction and gave us half a year to search for the truth. The judges did not pay attention to the fact that the claimant's claim was supported by the chief accountant of the doctoral candidate. former deputy director of the defense plant. The claim was supported by a member of the management board of the senior researcher. former head of the city hall,. The suit was supported by the chairman of the audit commission of the partnership, which repeatedly tried to hold a meeting and listen to the chairman's report on financial abuses. The court did not want to pay attention to the fact that the minutes of the meeting aroused doubts, in which the number of people attending the meeting for several consecutive years was 79 people. I have a question. Why do we need a second instance if it does not accept the plaintiff's evidence? We submitted copies of 12 member's gardeners' books to the second instance court, which were on the list of payers, but were not in the last register .. At the sessions of the chairmen of the so-called. in the regional union of gardeners there were many statements that it is useless to apply to the regional court. If there is such a decision in the cassation instance, it will be necessary to apply to the Supreme Court. And who needs it ?. After all, the question is not worth the eaten egg, which, under normal consideration, could be solved on the first meeting in the district court. : On December 6, I got acquainted with the protocol of the regional court where the appeal was considered. Refined the reason for refusing our complaint. The court did not satisfy our request for inclusion in the lists of gardeners, obtained by us in the archive, in which 192 owners are listed. When we asked questions about our agreement with the prosecution, we agreed. But in the protocols it is written that we did not give additional materials, except for those that are in the case. It is not known where the gardeners who were on the lists were 192, then 150 and at the end of 125. And payers 162. Where did the term payers come from. The court is strict and does not give an opportunity to prove its arguments. Someone with arithmetic is not frets. Most likely we do not know the CCP, on which the court decision is based. The regional court is not the last instance. We will think whether it is worth proving our case further.

how this mournful place could get a rating of 3.3))))))

Sadness

impossible to get through. Maybe you need to increase the number number of rooms

I happen. Cases in a live queue is ...