23. Legal Department
Base Number: 2019/1917
Decision Number: 2019/513
“Case Law Text”
Court :Court of First Instance
At the end of the trial of the case for the cancellation of the appeal between the parties, the file was reviewed and considered by the party’s deputies during the term of the provision for the rejection of the case for reasons written in the decommissioning.
– DECISION –
Attorney of the plaintiffs, their client murisi … and the defendant contractor signed a construction contract in exchange for a share of the land on 19.03.2010, the decommissioning decommissioned party 17 of the contract. he requested and sued the defendant for the cancellation of the appeal, claiming that he did not submit it in accordance with the article, that the pursuit initiated against the defendant that he would receive a delay increase with rent compensation in accordance with the contract was unfairly challenged …-denial compensation from the defendant.
The defendant’s attorney asked for the dismissal of the case, arguing that the plaintiffs did not respond to the invitation, that the other owners had no objections to the absence and shame, that the building began to be inhabited, and even some apartments had tenants in them, even though the client had completed the construction and invited it for delivery.
Dec January Dec December 2011, the court has decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the owners of the land must accept that they delivered the land on 18.08.2010 in accordance with the construction, and that the completion time of construction is therefore 18.09.2011, because of deficiencies, the owner of the land has no justified reason to refrain from delivery, so they can request the rental fees that operate until December 2011, they cannot request for January 2012 and after, which are subject to follow-up.
The deputies of the parties appealed the decision.
1-according to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based and the necessary reasons, the lack of a hit in the evaluation of the evidence, all appeals of the defendant’s attorney were not considered in place.
2-on the date agreed in accordance with the construction contract in exchange for Land share, the contractor must perform decay in accordance with the construction, project and contract. A construction site owner with incomplete and deceptive manufacturing cannot be forced to take delivery.
In a concrete case, the land owner is right not to take delivery of the independent section due to the deficiencies put forward, according to the response notice dated Dec.23.01.2012. Since these deficiencies were later corrected by the contractor and a new notice on delivery was not withdrawn, the court determined the delay period and decided to dismiss the case on false grounds, while the rental price should be subject to provision.
Conclusion: the above (1) for reasons that are described in numbered paragraphs, the defendant appeals the denial of the appeal, all of the attorneys, (2) for reasons that are described in numbered paragraphs, the plaintiffs appeal the judgment of counsel on appeal with the acceptance of CORRUPTION for the benefit of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs received in advance upon request the extradition of the mortar, the following fees from the defendant who appeal to the decision within 15 days after the notification of the decision to be taken for the correction of the plaintiff from the direction of open, the defendant in terms of the decision to be closed for the correction
It was decided unanimously on 18.02.2019.