Appeal to the Judicial Board on Civil Cases

Home / Forms / Appeal to the Judicial Board on Civil Cases

Appeal to the Judicial Board on Civil Cases

22 January 2026

Appeal to the Judicial Board on Civil Cases

The Judicial Board for Civil Cases

East Kazakhstan Regional Court

071600, Ust-Kamenogorsk, ul.Ualieva,5

723-1601@sud.kz

8 (7232) 56-04-26, internal number: 0139, 0138.

from the Defendant: C kz LLP

represented by Director D No. No. O.F.

BIN no.no.no.

Almaty, Tole bi str., ..., 13th floor.

8 (727) 301 .

Representative by proxy:

Lawyer Sarzhanov Galymzhan Turlybekovich

Law and Law Law Firm

BIN 201240021767

79 Abylai Khan Ave., office 304, Almaty.

info@zakonpravo.kz / www.zakonpravo.kz

+7 708 578 57 58; + 7 727 971 78 58.

THE APPEAL

on the decision of the Specialized Interdistrict Economic Court of East Kazakhstan region dated January 23, 2025

On January 23, 2025, the Judge of the specialized interdistrict Economic Court for East Kazakhstan Region, N.S. Nursapinov, having considered the civil case No. 6309-24-00-2-3180 on the claim of Ip LLP against C kz LLP for debt collection and penalties totaling 2,504,698 and court costs in the amount of 325,611 tenge, Guided by Articles 223-226 of the CPC, the Court Decided:

To satisfy the claims of the limited liability company "IP" against the limited liability company "C kz" for debt collection and penalties.

To collect from the limited liability company "C kz" in favor of the limited liability company "IP" debt in the amount of 2,394 tenge, a penalty in the amount of 96,148 tenge, as well as court costs for the payment of state duty in the amount of 74,706 tenge, payment for the activities of a private bailiff in the amount of 39,320 tenge.

The arguments indicated in the court's decision of January 23, 2025, which was rendered in final form on January 24, 2025, do not agree.

We consider the decision of the court of first instance to be illegal, unjustified and subject to cancellation on the following grounds:

In accordance with Article 224 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the court's decision must be lawful and justified and based on the evidence presented by the parties and examined at the court session.

The Court in its decision, in the reasoning part of the decision, argues that the Court has established that the defendant has the following debts to the plaintiff:

under contract 1 in the amount of KZT 1,419,780, which is confirmed by the signed act of completed works No. 3 dated September 30, 2023 in the amount of KZT 1,419,780.;

under contract 2 in the amount of KZT 1,089,450, which is confirmed by the signed act of completed works No. 4 dated October 12, 2023 in the amount of KZT 1,089,450.

We cannot agree with these arguments of the court because the court of first instance did not take into account the following arguments of the defendant:

Thus, there are contractual legal relations between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and three contracts have been concluded for the performance of construction and contract work, namely:

1. Contract No. 28/08/23 dated August 28, 2023 for the performance of electrical installation work at the Multi-storey Residential Building (position 87) facility in the amount of 1,444,480 tenge; (Appendix No. 1). was abandoned without completing the work.

2. Contract No. 28/10/23 dated August 28, 2023 for the installation and commissioning of fire alarm systems, video surveillance systems and intercom systems at the Multi-storey Residential building (position 87) located at the following address: Ust-Kamenogorsk 070016, Yesenberlin Avenue 68 (Appendix No. 2)

3. Contract No. 51 dated September 22, 2023 for the installation of a fire alarm system, commissioning in the amount of 1 089 480 tenge., located at: located at the address East Kazakhstan region, Ust-Kamenogorsk Ave. Kanysha Satpayeva, 55/9. (Appendix No. 3)

The above relations correspond to clause 1 of Articles 151, 616 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which stipulates that transactions are made orally or in writing (simple or notarized). Under the contract, one party (contractor) undertakes to perform certain work on behalf of the other party (customer) and deliver its result to the customer within the prescribed period, and the customer undertakes to accept the result of the work and pay for it (pay the price of the work).

Regarding the agreement No.DP-28/10/23 dated August 28, 2023.

Subcontract No. 28/10/23 was concluded on September 28, 2023 for the performance of electrical installation work at the multi-storey residential building (position 87) facility in the amount of 1,464,480. The work has been completed, and certificates of completed work have been signed.

Due to the fact that the parties had borrowed claims on the specified dispute, accordingly, they could not come to a peaceful settlement of the case.

Thus, on November 25, 2024, the Plaintiff conducted an inspection of the facility where an Act of inspection of the facility was drawn up under the specified contract. As a result, a discrepancy in equipment (missing) 87 items in the amount of 1,181,507.68 tenge was established. The amount for work according to the specification of equipment and materials not exhibited was 611,700 tenge. (Appendix No. 9 of the Object Survey Act dated November 25, 2024)

In total, the amount of their debt to us for equipment and unfinished work on the 87th position is 1,793,207.68 tenge.

In addition, in accordance with clause 8 of the Contract, the Subcontractor guarantees the high quality of the work performed, in accordance with the applicable regulatory and technical documentation, GOST SNiP and TU. According to clause 8.2, the warranty period for the work performed by the Subcontractor is set at 60 months from the date of signing the Act of the Working commission for completed work.

Based on the above, we received an Act of Malfunction dated November 12, 2024 from the end user of the MZHD AXIS located at 68 Iliyas Yesenberlin St., represented by Chairman Kasimov M.B. (Dale AXIS). (Appendix No. 4 Act of malfunction dated November 12, 2024)

The act describes the facility, a nine-storey residential building located at 68 Iliyas Yesenberlin Street, with automatic fire alarm equipment, a central control panel, and Devices located on each floor. The entire APS system and the Video surveillance system have critical problems and the need to detect the causes of the failure and eliminate it.

Upon receipt of the Malfunction Report by the Plaintiff, a Troubleshooting Notice was sent to the Defendant for issue No. 1811/24 dated 11/18/2024, which was duly sent and delivered to the Defendant. (Appendix No. 5 Troubleshooting Notification)

In accordance with clause 8.3 of the Contract, they asked to immediately travel to the address of the facility with a representative of the Contractor and organize work to eliminate the causes of the problems. Clause 8.4 of the Contract stipulates that if the subcontractor refuses to draw up or sign an act of discovered deficiencies, the Contractor appoints a qualification examination to confirm them, which will draw up an appropriate Act to fix the deficiencies and their nature, which is the basis for the Contractor to file claims against the Subcontractor

However, after the Defendant received the notification, the defects in the act were not eliminated.

Subsequently, the Plaintiff repeatedly sent a Pre-trial claim to the Defendant, ext. No. 2811/24 dated 11/28/2024, in case of non-fulfillment of obligations to eliminate defects, the Defendant will be forced to fix the defects on his own and assesses the work for 1,500,000 tenge. (Appendix No. 6 Pre-trial claim ext. No. 2811/24 dated 11/28/2024)

A violation of an obligation is understood as its non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment, which contradicts Article 349 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which is unacceptable according to Article 272 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

In addition, clause 8.3 of the Contract stipulates that if, before the expiration of the warranty period, defects or premature complete or partial destruction of the work performed were detected, which led to the impossibility of normal operation of the work performed by the subcontractor, documented by a bilateral act, the Subcontractor is obliged to perform additional work to eliminate them at its own expense.

Subsequently, the Plaintiff received a response to the Pre-Trial claim. Of the following nature, "during the investigation of the circumstances of the case, we became aware that from the end user, represented by the AXIS of the Moscow Railway named after I. Yesenberlin Street, 68, in particular, Chairman Kasymov M.B. did not receive a complaint letter to either IP LLP or C kz LLP. (Appendix No. 7 response to the Pre-trial claim, ext. No. 2811/24)

At the same time, our specialists conducted an inspection of the APS as part of the warranty service of this facility. During the survey, it was found that equipment replacement and system reconfiguration were required. As a result, we contacted the chairman of the AXIS of the Ministry of Railways, M.B. Kasimov, to whom we explained the situation and agreed on the procedure and mechanism for troubleshooting the identified problems, which will take 10 working days free of charge. In this regard, we found a compromise with the chairman of the MZhD axis. (Appendix No. 8 of the coordination of the procedure and mechanism for troubleshooting the identified problems with the AXIS of the MZhD)

Due to the above-mentioned circumstance, the Defendant has not received a letter or information about the elimination of defects from the Plaintiff to this day, thus, we consider that the Plaintiff has not fulfilled its obligations In accordance with clause 8 of the Contract. The Subcontractor guarantees the high quality of the work performed, in accordance with the current regulatory and technical documentation, GOST SNiP and TU.

According to clause 8.2, the warranty period of the work performed by the Subcontractor is set at 60 months from the date of signing the Act of the Working Commissions for the completed work.

In accordance with clause 8.3 of the Contract, no work was organized to eliminate the causes of the problems. Clause 8.4 of the Contract stipulates that if the subcontractor refuses to draw up or sign an act of discovered deficiencies, the Contractor draws up an appropriate Act to confirm the deficiencies and their nature, which is the basis for the Contractor to file claims against the Subcontractor.

In accordance with clause 3.8 of the above-mentioned Agreement, it is provided that "Payment under the Agreement is made by the Customer in the amount determined as the difference between the amount indicated in the Certificates of Work Performed signed by the Customer and the amount of the granite retention, based on invoices provided by the Contractor, taking into account the amount of the guarantee retention.

Also, clause 3.9 of the above-mentioned Agreement provides that "The Customer has the right to deduct from the amount of the guarantee deduction compensation for all costs and losses (including material overruns and other losses) that have arisen as a result of the Contractor's failure to fulfill or improper fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement, having previously notified the Contractor in writing."

Clause 4.2.15 of the Contract stipulates that "The Contractor undertakes to compensate the Customer's losses in the event of improper fulfillment of obligations assumed by the Contractor, resulting in the termination of this Contract.

Clause 5.12 of the Contract stipulates "If the work is performed by the Contractor with deviations from the Contract, which worsened the work, or with other defects that make it unsuitable for the contract provided for in the contract or, in the absence of a corresponding condition in the contract, for normal use, the Contractor is obliged, at the choice of the Customer:

1) Eliminate the shortcomings of the work free of charge within the time limits set by the Customer;

2) Proportionately reduce the price set for the work;

3) Reimburse the Customer's expenses for self-repair of defects.

Thus, the Defendant caused real material damage to the Plaintiff under the Contract No. 28/10/23 dated August 28, 2023.

· Discrepancies in equipment and unfinished work in the amount of 1,793,207.68 tenge;

· For non-fulfillment of obligations to eliminate defects according to the Act of malfunction is estimated at 1,500,000 tenge;

The total amount of our claims under contract No. 28/10/23 is 3,293,207 tenge.

Regarding the agreement No. P-51 dated September 22, 2023.

Contract No. P-51 was concluded on September 22, 2023 in the amount of KZT 1,089,480 with a work schedule until October 30, 2023.

An advance payment in the amount of 115,200 tenge was made under this agreement on September 22, 2023.

The works were completed on time, as evidenced by the signed acts of completed works dated 12.10.2023 in the amount of 1,089,450 tenge.

Thus, in accordance with clause 3.8 of the above-mentioned Agreement, it is provided that "Payment under the Agreement is made by the Customer in the amount determined as the difference between the amount indicated in the Certificates of Work Performed signed by the Customer and the amount of the granite retention, based on invoices provided by the Contractor, taking into account the amount of the guarantee retention.

The amount of payment is 1,089,450 tenge according to the ADR dated 12.10.2023 – 10% = 108,945 tenge guarantee deduction with refund in September 2028 - 115,200 tenge prepayment and payable = 865,332 tenge. (Appendix No. 10 of the ABR dated 12.10.2023)

In addition, clause 5.12 of the Contract stipulates "If the work is performed by the Contractor with deviations from the Contract, which worsened the work, or with other defects that make it unsuitable for the contract provided for in the contract or, in the absence of a corresponding condition in the contract, for normal use, the Contractor is obliged, at the choice of the Customer.:

Eliminate the shortcomings of the work free of charge within the time limits set by the Customer;

Proportionately reduce the price set for the work;

Reimburse the Customer's expenses for self-repair of defects.

Paragraph 7.5 of the Agreement also provides that "For non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment of obligations not provided for in paragraph 7.4., but provided for in the terms of this agreement, including paragraphs 4.2., 5.2., 5.7. of this agreement, a fine in the amount of 1,000 tenge to 10% of the total amount is imposed on the Contractor the relevant annex to this agreement is at the discretion of the Customer, and also fully reimburses all actual possible losses incurred by the customer as a result of the Contractor's failure to comply with its obligations."

Clause 8.12 of the contract provides for the Warranty period of the work performed by the Contractor to be set at 60 months from the date of signing the Act of the working commission for the completed work.

Thus, on November 24, 2024, the Defendant conducted an inspection of the facility under the specified contract and drew up an Act of inspection of the facility. As a result, a discrepancy in equipment (missing) 51 items was found. Lack of equipment and materials in the amount of 1,353,262 tenge of work in the amount of 600,000 tenge. (Appendix No. 11 of the Object Survey Act dated November 24, 2024)

The total amount of the Defendant's debt to the Plaintiff for the equipment in two positions amounted to 1,953,262 tenge.

By his actions, the defendant violates Articles 4 and 5 of the CPC RK Tasks and Principles of civil proceedings. Violation of the principles of civil proceedings, depending on its nature and materiality, entails the cancellation of judicial acts.

Article 6. The Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "Interpretation of the norms of civil legislation" stipulates: The norms of civil legislation must be interpreted in accordance with the literal meaning of their verbal expression.

Thus, Dear Court, the Defendant's arguments that the terms of the Contract are not being fulfilled are not valid and are not justified on the basis of the above arguments.

According to art. 620 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the initial and final deadlines for the work are specified in the contract. By agreement between the parties, the contract may also provide for deadlines for completing certain stages of work (interim deadlines). Unless otherwise stipulated in the contract, the contractor is liable for violations of both the initial and final, as well as intermediate deadlines for the performance of work.

By its actions, the court violated Articles 4 and 5 of the CPC RK Tasks and Principles of civil proceedings. Violation of the principles of civil proceedings, depending on its nature and materiality, entails the cancellation of judicial acts.

According to Articles 67, paragraphs 1, Article 68 of the CPC RK, evidence is considered reliable if, as a result of verification, it turns out that it corresponds to reality. Each evidence is also subject to assessment taking into account its relevance, admissibility, reliability, and all the evidence collected together is sufficient to resolve a civil case.

We consider the Court's arguments to be unsubstantiated and unjustified from the point of view of relevance and admissibility as evidence in accordance with art. 68 of the CPC RK, each evidence is subject to assessment taking into account relevance, admissibility, reliability, and all the evidence collected together sufficiency to resolve a civil case – in this civil case, we observe the groundlessness of Claims and Defamation in relation to The defendant.

392 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, when interpreting the terms of a contract, the court takes into account the literal meaning of the words and expressions contained therein. The literal meaning of a contract clause, in case of ambiguity, is established by comparing it with other terms and the meaning of the contract as a whole. Also, Article 6 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "Interpretation of the norms of civil legislation" provides: The norms of civil legislation must be interpreted in accordance with the literal meaning of their verbal expression.

According to Article 147 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, transactions are recognized as actions of citizens and legal entities aimed at establishing, changing or terminating civil rights and obligations.

Also, the plaintiff in the lawsuit asks the court to collect the services of a representative, since the Defendant, by showing complete inaction, allows a violation of the Plaintiff's material and procedural rights. As a result, he was forced to resort to qualified assistance from a law firm and incurred court costs for paying for the services of a representative in the amount of 10% of the amount owed = 260 980 tenge.

In this lawsuit, the Plaintiff's interests are represented by two legal consultants.:

1) Alibek Okapovich Almabaev – who, according to Order No. 17/k dated October 28, 2024, IP LLP, according to Employment Contract No. 17, was hired as a Lawyer;

2) Alibekov Ayan Alibekuly - According to the Extract from the Chamber of Legal Consultants in East Kazakhstan Region No. 1577 dated 08/22/2024, he is a Legal Consultant for a period of 90 calendar days.

The plaintiff attached to the materials of the civil case:

- A receipt for the receipt cash order issued by Law Firm "S" LLP in the amount of 260 980 tenge for No. 101 dated 10/29/2024.

They do not agree with the claims of the Plaintiff's representative to recover the costs of paying for the representative's services in the amount of 260,980 tenge, since In accordance with art. 113 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, it is stipulated at the request of the party in whose favor the Decision was made, the court awards, on the other hand, the costs incurred to pay for the assistance of a representative (several representatives) who participated in the process and did not who is in an employment relationship with this party, in the amount of the expenses actually incurred by the party (payment orders, fiscal receipt).

During the study of the materials, there was no Agreement on the provision of legal services. There was a Receipt for the receipt of a cash order issued by Law Firm "S" LLP in the amount of 260 980 tenge for No. 101 dated 10/29/2024 – Thus, it can be assumed that the Legal Services Agreement was concluded with Law Firm "S" LLP.

The power of attorney to represent the Plaintiff's interests was issued to the legal consultant A. A. A., on the basis of which he represents the plaintiff's interests.

However, the Plaintiff's representative, A. A.A., did not provide the court with what relation he has to Law Firm LLP or the company to him, for example (Employment order at the time of filing the claim) Since the Order of a legal entity is not a strict accounting, we believe it is necessary to request an extract from the pension fund on the accrual of pension accruals to the employee of the Law Firm "S" LLP.,

Accordingly, we consider the representative by proxy A. A.A., cannot claim compensation for his services since, according to art. 113 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Plaintiff actually did not bear the expenses of the representative of A. A.A.

Thus, the Plaintiff's claims for recovery in favor of the Plaintiff of the costs incurred to pay for the representative's assistance in the amount of 260,980 tenge are unjustified, since no evidence was provided of the actual payment for the representative's services, namely, a fiscal check and a contract for the provision of legal assistance.

113 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, it is stipulated at the request of the party in whose favor the Decision was made, the court awards, on the other hand, the costs incurred to pay for the assistance of a representative (several representatives) who participated in the process and is not in an employment relationship with this party, in the amount of the costs actually incurred by the party.

According to paragraph 2 of Article 35 of the Business Code, individuals who meet one of the conditions are subject to mandatory registration with the tax service as sole proprietors.:

employing employees on a permanent basis;

those who receive an annual income from entrepreneurial activity in excess of 12 minimum wage.

As you can see, the activity of a legal consultant may fall under at least one condition regarding annual income, which means it requires registration as an individual entrepreneur.

At the same time, according to subclause 3, clause 2, Article 683 of the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a legal consultant does not have the right to apply special conditions (patent, simplified procedure, fixed deduction), since the provision of consulting services, activities in the field of law, justice and justice does not allow the use of special procedures for small businesses. Therefore, a legal consultant can register his business activity as a sole proprietor on ESD.

The tax committee also adheres to the opinion that it is preferable for legal consultants to register as sole proprietors on ESD.:

Answer Chairman of the State Duma of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 07/19/2019 to the question dated 07/05/2019 № 557332/1;

The response of the Chairman of the State Duma of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 29.03.2019 to the question dated 14.03.2019 № 540654

According to paragraph 1 of Article 166 of the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, monetary settlements require the use of KKM (online cash registers). An exception is made only for persons listed in paragraph 2 of Article 166 of the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (including individuals, private bailiffs, notaries, Lawyers, mediators).

There are no exceptions for legal consultants.

Therefore, if a legal consultant is registered as an individual entrepreneur on ESD and will make payments using cash or payment cards, then he will need to use an online sales register and issue checks. Thus, Legally, the consultant and or Law Firm "S" LLP were required to attach a receipt from the KKM (online sales register) to the Receipt for the incoming cash order.

In addition, not providing a fiscal receipt to an online cash register is a gross violation of the Tax legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

31 of the Tax Code states that a taxpayer's obligation to the state is recognized as a tax obligation arising in accordance with the tax legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, by virtue of which the taxpayer is obliged to perform the actions specified in paragraph 2 of Article 36 of this Code. The state, represented by a tax authority, has the right to require a taxpayer (tax agent) to fulfill his tax obligation in full, and in case of non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment of a tax obligation, apply methods to ensure it and measures of enforcement in accordance with the procedure established by this Code.

According to subparagraph 3) of paragraph 1 of Article 802 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Kazakhstan (CAO), reports or statements by individuals and legal entities, as well as media reports, are the reason for initiating an administrative offence case.

215 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, tax evasion and (or) other mandatory payments to the budget from organizations is a criminal offense.

Article 270 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan provides that when cases of violations of the rule of law are identified, the court has the right to issue and send a private ruling to the relevant organizations, officials or other persons performing managerial functions, who are required to report on the measures they have taken within one month.

46 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, persons participating in the case have the right to file petitions, including for taking measures to secure the claim, to provide evidence, to request additional evidence, to apply conciliation procedures; to give oral and written explanations to the court; to present their arguments on all issues arising during the trial.

Paragraph 6, art. 82 of the CPC states that the persons involved in the case may request the court to entrust the conduct of a forensic examination to a specific person with the necessary special scientific knowledge.

During the trial, the defendant filed a motion for the appointment of a forensic construction examination for a construction and economic study, since the work under the above-mentioned contracts by the Plaintiff was performed improperly. In addition, some types of work were not performed and many types of equipment that were received by the Plaintiff but not installed on the construction site, for which there is an inspection report. Whereas the AVR was signed by the parties. All the arguments in the framework of the settlement of the dispute in the pre-trial procedure did not yield results, and subsequently the Defendant was forced to apply for the appointment of a forensic construction examination.

Paragraph 3, Article 82 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) provides that the court appoints a judicial examination at the request of a party or on its own initiative. At the request of the party and other persons involved in the case regarding the falsification of written evidence, the court has the right to appoint an appropriate expert examination.

According to paragraph 246 of the Order of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated April 27, 2017 No. 484 on approval of the Rules for the organization and conduct of forensic examinations and studies in forensic examination bodies, the tasks of the forensic expert construction and economic study of buildings and structures are to determine the compliance of the cost of actually performed construction and installation or repair and construction works with acceptance certificates of completed works.

However, when making the decision, the court did not give an appropriate legal assessment, taking into account the relativity and permissibility of conducting a forensic construction examination.

According to Article 224 of the CPC, the court's decision must be lawful and justified. A decision is lawful when it is made in compliance with the norms of procedural law and in full compliance with the norms of substantive law applicable to this legal relationship, or is based on the application, if necessary, of a law governing a similar relationship, or proceeds from the general principles and meaning of civil legislation and the requirements of good faith, reasonableness and fairness.

A decision is considered justified if it reflects facts relevant to the case, confirmed by evidence examined by the court that meet the requirements of the law on their relevance, admissibility and reliability, or are well-known circumstances that do not need to be proven and are collectively sufficient to resolve the dispute.

The court's decision was made in case of non-compliance with the above requirements.

According to Article 427, paragraph 4, of the CPC, the norms of substantive law are considered violated or improperly applied if the court applied a law that is not applicable, misinterpreted the law.

In resolving the dispute, the court did not apply the applicable rules of substantive law, which led to an incorrect resolution of the case and the issuance of an illegal decision.

According to Article 297 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, if the penalty payable is excessively large compared to the creditor's losses, the court has the right to reduce the penalty, taking into account the degree of fulfillment of obligations by the debtor and the debtor's interests that deserve attention, the court reduces the debtor's liability if the creditor intentionally or negligently contributed to an increase in the amount of losses caused by non-performance or improper performance, or did not take reasonable measures to reduce them.

In accordance with Articles 401, 402, 403, 404 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, it is stipulated that an appeal may be filed against court decisions that have not entered into force. The right of appeal against a court decision belongs to the parties and other persons involved in the case, and are considered by the appellate judicial board for civil cases of the regional and equivalent courts in a collegial composition of at least three judges of the board. Appeals are filed through the court that issued the decision. An appeal may be filed within one month from the date of the final decision, and by persons who did not participate in the trial, from the date of sending them a copy of the decision.

Based on the above and guided by Articles 401, 402, 403, 404 of the CPC RK,

I ask the Court:

· To satisfy the Defendant's appeal against the Decision of the Specialized Interdistrict Economic Court for East Kazakhstan Region dated January 23, 2025;

· The decision of the Specialized Interdistrict Economic Court for East Kazakhstan Region dated January 23, 2025– should be canceled.

With respect,

Proxy Representative lawyer: Sarzhanov G.T.

Attention!

The Law and Law Law Firm draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a specific situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you with legal advice and drafting any legal document that suits your situation.

For more information, please contact your Lawyer/Lawyer by phone; +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.

Lawyer Almaty Lawyer Legal service Legal advice Civil Criminal Administrative cases Arbitration disputes Law Company Kazakhstan Office Court Cases

Attention!

Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.

For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.

Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases

Download document

Апеляц жалоба на реш суда - по Договору строительного подряда
15 downloads