The plaintiff's omission of the limitation period before filing a claim is an independent ground for rejecting the claim.

I., M., S., Kh. and K. filed a lawsuit with the court against PC "Yu", JSC "Bank", LLP "A", LLP "D" for invalidation of the minutes of the general meeting of shareholders and real estate pledge agreements received at the request of JSC "Bank" for supervisory review of the in the case of judicial acts. The claim is motivated by the fact that when the general meeting of the PC made a decision on November 17, 2008 to pledge real estate to the bank, the quorum requirement was not met, and therefore the contested protocol and the decision taken on it cannot be the basis for concluding a pledge agreement for real estate of the PC "Yu". The claim was partially satisfied by the decision of the specialized interdistrict economic Court of Zhambyl region dated March 28, 2013. The decision of the general meeting of shareholders of PC "Yu" dated November 17, 2008 was declared invalid. The claims for invalidation of real estate pledge agreements have been refused. By a decision of the appellate judicial board for civil and administrative cases, the court's decision was changed, the refusal of the claim was canceled, and a new decision was made to satisfy the claim in this part. The rest of the court's decision remains unchanged. The Cassation judicial Board upheld the decision of the appellate instance. In the petition, the applicant requested to change the court's decision regarding the refusal to satisfy the claim and to cancel the decisions of the appellate and cassation instances regarding the satisfaction of the claim, while retaining the court's decision in this part, referring to violations of substantive and procedural law committed by the courts. Having studied the case materials, the Supervisory Judicial Board for Civil and Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court came to the following conclusion. According to sub-paragraphs 1), 3), 4) of Part 1 of Article 364 of the CPC, the grounds for revoking or changing a court decision are incorrect determination and clarification of the range of circumstances relevant to the case, inconsistency of the court's conclusions set out in the decision with the circumstances of the case, improper application of substantive law.

The case materials established that on December 24, 2008, a General Loan Agreement was concluded between the lender JSC "Bank" and borrowers LLP "A" and LLP "D", according to which the bank established a revolving credit line for borrowers in the amount of 95,000,000 tenge. In fulfillment of the obligations assumed by LLP "A" and LLP "D" under the loan agreement by the lender with borrowers and PC "Yu" as the pledgor, on December 24, 2008, pledge agreements were concluded: No. 961/1z of real estate in the form of an administrative building with the right to lease a land plot of 0.1832 hectares; No. 961/2z of immovable property in the form of a mill with the right to lease a land plot of 0.6096hectares; No. 961/3z of immovable property in the form of a cannery with a land plot of 2.4300 hectares on the right of temporary paid land use (lease) for a period of 6 years; No. 961/4z of immovable property in the form of a complex base with the right of temporary long-term paid land use with a land plot of 2.84 hectares. By concluding the disputed pledge agreements, Chairman of the Management Board of PC "Yu" A. acted in accordance with the charter of PC "Yu" and the decision of the general meeting of shareholders dated November 17, 2008. In satisfying the plaintiffs' claims, the courts concluded that only 264 PC members out of 679 members participated in the general meeting of SC Yu on November 17, 2008, i.e. there was no quorum. The plaintiffs did not miss the statute of limitations, since they learned about the existence of the disputed minutes of the general meeting of the SC "Yu" only in October 2012. These conclusions of the courts are unfounded, contradict the norms of legislation and do not correspond to the actual circumstances of the case. According to paragraph 10 of the charter of the PC "Yu", approved by the decision of the general meeting of its members dated January 20, 2005, the chairman of the cooperative carries out the day-to-day management of the PC's activities, implements the decisions of the general meeting, represents the cooperative in relations with various state and non-governmental organizations, individual citizens, concludes business contracts on behalf of the cooperative, participates in the meeting of cooperative members. It follows from the meaning of article 16 and paragraph 7 of Article 18 of the Law "On the Production Cooperative" (hereinafter referred to as the Law) that the chairman of the Management Board (chairman of the cooperative), when disposing of the cooperative's property, must obtain prior approval of transactions in excess of the amount established by the charter. This amount was not established by the Charter of PC "Yu", therefore, the conclusions of the courts that the chairman of the Board of PC "Yu" A. could not resolve the issue of the pledge of the cooperative's property and its extrajudicial sale without the consent of the general meeting of shareholders are unfounded. According to paragraph 3 of Article 99 of the Civil Code, the exclusive competence of the general meeting of members of a production cooperative includes: 1) amendment of the cooperative's charter; 2) formation of executive, auditing bodies and the supervisory board and recall of their members; 3) admission and exclusion of cooperative members; 4) approval of the financial statements of the cooperative and distribution of its net income; 5) decision on reorganization and liquidation of the cooperative. Legislative acts and constituent documents may also include the resolution of other issues within the exclusive competence of the general Meeting. Matters falling within the exclusive competence of the general meeting or the supervisory board of the cooperative may not be transferred by them to the decision of the executive bodies of the cooperative. According to paragraph 7 of Article 18 of the Law, in relation to this case, the competence of the executive body of the PC "Yu" includes, among other things, the disposal of the property of the PC "Yu" within the limits provided for by Law. There are no provisions in the Law and the charter of the PC "Yu" on attributing to the competence of the general meeting the issue of pledging the property of a production cooperative.  The courts' conclusions that the plaintiffs did not miss the limitation period, which was announced by JSC Bank, since the plaintiffs became aware of this meeting only in October 2012, are untenable on the following grounds. According to paragraph 1 of Article 178 of the Civil Code, the general limitation period is set at three years. In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 180 of the Civil Code, the limitation period begins on the day when the person learned or should have learned about the violation of the right. According to paragraph 3 of Article 179 of the Civil Code, the expiration of the limitation period before filing a claim is the basis for the court's decision to dismiss the claim. The plaintiff's omission of the limitation period before filing a claim is an independent ground for rejecting the claim. According to article 9 of the Law, a PC member has the right to receive full information about the activities of the cooperative, including to get acquainted with its accounting and other documentation. The plaintiffs should have been aware of the decision of the general meeting of shareholders of PC Yu, starting on November 17, 2008, and they had the opportunity to apply to the court for protection of their violated rights during the limitation period, but they did not do so. Taking into account the above, the supervisory judicial board of the Supreme Court annulled the judicial acts issued in the case and issued a new decision to dismiss the claim. 

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