An employee contributes 20 thousand to a company .. and receives 7.7 million dirhams by final judgment

The Dubai Court of Cassation upheld a ruling by the Courts of First Instance and the Court of Appeal that an Asian employee was entitled to 25% of the shares of a pharmaceutical company he co-founded for only 20 thousand dirhams, and a ruling in his favor amounted to about seven million and 731 thousand dirhams.

The rationale for the “Emirates Today” ruling revealed that as an “offensive opponent” by the legal term, the Asian employee has joined a lawsuit filed by his “Arab national” partner to restore his rights in the same company after he contributed 50% to its creation and at a rate of 60,000 dirhams, but their partner rejected them and evaded them with the aim of taking over the company, taking advantage of not proving the partnership in any written contract or publicity.

“Emirates Today” was only in the text of a reference ruling in which the Court of Cassation in Dubai resolved a legal dispute by confirming the eligibility of the Arab partner for 50% of the company’s shares, and for him the amount of 15 million and 462 thousand dirhams, of its total profit, and the institutions branching from it.

According to the rationale of the ruling, the courts of Dubai applied the rule of “partnership of reality” between the employees and their partner, who rejected them and transferred the company on behalf of his wife, in order to deprive them of their rights. sharing in profits and losses, pointing out that failure to prove the partnership in a written agreement and failure to disclose it does not preclude proving its existence by other means of evidence.

According to the evidence from the pleadings and the expert report, which reassured the court, the plaintiff, the defendant and the third “Asian” partner “joined the lawsuit as intervening opponent”. consulting firm as a sole proprietorship owned by the defendant, as the two partners. 130,000 dirhams, and the Arab worker pays 60,000 dirhams from his personal account to the company’s account and then pays 30,000 dirhams in cash, provided that his 50% share of the partnership and the other two partners pay equally in the amount of 20 thousand dirhams for each of them, provided that the share of each of them is 25%.

In 2010, they agreed to add a new activity to the company and change its name, and the defendant provided the Arab plaintiff and the Asian partner with all the information about the company, contracts and otherwise, via email, and they remained committed until 2020.
The pleadings stated that the Arab plaintiff quit his job and decided to officially include himself in the partnership, and sat down with his two partners to draft a new contract proving his partnership by 50%, but the defendant turned against his two partners, and took possession of the company’s assets for himself.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit, especially after discovering that his partner had registered the company from the outset in the name of the defendant’s wife, who had secretly taken steps to evict his two partners, so he signed a partnership contract with his woman without their knowledge, and the institution continued to grow and prosper, and its activities expanded and branched out into other businesses, and in the meantime the defendant transferred the business entirely to his name, assuming that he had fully owned his two partners had divorced, because she had contributed to his wife’s company on paper, and in light of the transfer of ownership they no longer had any rights.
The arbitrator and legal counsel representing the plaintiff, Muhammad Naguib, said the defendant had taken the initiative to transfer all of the foundation’s funds and profits, which amount to more than 30 million dirhams, to his wife’s account, in another attempt to embezzle his partners’ shares. the profits, which represent a form of fraud, conspiracy and the unjustified appropriation of other people’s money, and put them under psychological and material pressure and family burdens.

He added that his client demanded to prove a reality partnership between him, the defendant and the third partner, the “offensive opponent”, in the institution from the date of incorporation, and to allow the company, the defendant and his wife to pay its owed profits from the date of incorporation of the company.

Najib indicated that the plaintiff based his lawsuit on the bank transfer of the incorporation amount of 60,000 dirhams, in addition to the correspondence that has continuously taken place between them since the incorporation and over the years.
After examining the case, the Court of First Instance ruled that the defendant and the company should be obliged to pay 15 million and 462 thousand dirhams, as well as statutory interest of 5% of the due date for the Arab plaintiff. his partnership in the defendant institution at a rate of 25% and pay all his profits due from the date of the partnership,

In addition, the defendant did not accept the verdict and appealed to the Court of Appeal, confirming the lack of a reality partnership with the defendants. The court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the contested judgment. He continued the appeal before the last judicial instance of the Court of Cassation, which settled the dispute with a order for reference, which must prove the partnership of reality and support the judgments of the first degree and the appeal.

In its important decision on the merits, the Court of Cassation clarified that the court has jurisdiction in this matter to determine whether or not a company is formed between persons when they intend to participate in an activity which has consequences, such as the judge judges from the circumstances of the case and all papers and evidence, without being summoned by the Court of Cassation, when he makes his verdict. For valid reasons have a fixed origin.

She stated that the main condition for establishing a reality partnership is that the partners have the intention to participate in the activity and that each of them contributes to its dependence at a profit or loss, pointing out that it failure to prove the partnership in writing, and failure to disclose it does not preclude its existence from being proven by other means of evidence.

Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news

Part

Print




Leave a Comment