The court dismissed the case for lack of evidence

A factory owner allegedly loaned a CEO 1.2 million dirhams

The Abu Dhabi Family Court and Civil and Administrative Claims rejected the claim of a factory owner who demanded to compel an executive director working in the factory to return the 1.2 million dirhams he loaned to her.

In detail, a factory owner demanded to oblige an executive director who works for him to pay one million, 206 thousand and 234 dirhams, with the legal interest at 12% from the due date until the full payment, while obligating her to pay judicial fees and attorney fees, noting that he lent her the amount of the claim through bank transfers since 2013 Until 2016, according to 47 transfers through an exchange company worth 241,980 dirhams, and a bank transfer and check worth 964,326 dirhams, and she promised him to return the debt, but she did not.

For its part, the court stated that it is established that the plaintiff submitted his claim document, photographs of remittances issued by an exchange company, and an account statement showing the deposit of sums in the defendant’s account. Making transfers to the defendant as expenses for the functioning of the factory and its requirements, and the defendant denied that those funds transferred to it were for debt and loan, and since that was the plaintiff’s insistence on his defense that the money transferred from him through an exchange company, and what he did of depositing checks and transferring money For the defendant’s account, it was on loan, but this did not prove to the court that the plaintiff lent the defendant those sums, and this is not evidence of the defendant’s preoccupation with the defendant, nor does it simply indicate the reason claimed by the plaintiff or prove the cause of the claim.

The court confirmed that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of the defendant's indebtedness, and his statements were sent in this regard and were devoid of evidence, which makes this case lose its basis from law and reality, and requires rejection, and the court ruled to reject the case and obligated the plaintiff to expenses.

• The owner of the factory did not provide evidence of the indebtedness of the Executive Director.

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