“Appeal” returned the case to the Commercial Court

A defendant seizes 538,000 dirhams from his friend after partnering in a fake project

The Court of First Instance rejected the invitation because the dispute was commercial.

archival

The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeals overturned the ruling of the Court of First Instance that rejected a lawsuit filed by a man against a friend of his accusing him of fraud and the appropriation of an amount of 658,200 dirhams, after he deluded him into participating in a project to buy cars from abroad and resell them in the country, and he discovered after a while that it was a fictitious project. And the court ruled to overturn the appealed decision and again ruled that the Abu Dhabi Family Court and Civil and Administrative Claims had no jurisdiction to hear the case qualitatively, and that the Abu Dhabi Commercial Court had jurisdiction to hear it.

The details of the case refer to a man filing a lawsuit against a friend of his, “of the nationality of an Arab country,” in which he demanded that he be obligated to pay him an amount of 658,200 dirhams and the legal interest at 12% of the claim’s due date, and an amount of 20,000 dirhams in compensation for the damages he sustained. , indicating that the defendant had asked the plaintiff to enter into a commercial partnership with him, which called him to transfer sums of money through his bank account, but he discovered, after a period of time, that there was no commercial project in the first place, and upon his request to the defendant to return the sum he delayed and did not take the initiative to deliver it, He supported his claim in the form of a bank account statement, the identity and residence of the defendant, while the defendant did not appear during the hearing of the case despite his legal declaration.

The Court of First Instance ruled to reject the case as it was and obligated the plaintiff to pay fees and expenses, on the basis that the plaintiff had instituted his suit on the basis that the defendant had received money from him through a number of bank transfers, except that the case papers were void of evidence of indebtedness, and the plaintiff did not request the conduct of any One of the ways of proof, and thus he has based his claim on transmitted statements that have no evidence from reality.

The judgment did not live up to the plaintiff, so he appealed to him on the basis of submitting evidence of the “statement of account” to prove the transfer of the required amounts in the case, and that the respondent did not appear definitively before the court until he denies the appellant’s claim, in addition to the fact that the respondent refunded him an amount of 120 thousand dirhams, and thus his liability becomes occupied with an amount of 538 thousand and 200 dirhams, and that the latter admitted in the police investigations that he received from the appellant the amount of the transfer mentioned, and that he refunded the amount of 120 thousand dirhams to him and traveled outside the country and did not respond to the appellant, noting that the appealed judgment was contradictory as he recognized the fact of the transfer and ended with The case was dismissed.

For its part, the court made it clear in the merits of its ruling that the appellant decided in his lawsuit that the transfers in the document of the claim were from the project of buying cars from abroad, which is a purely commercial business, so that the cause of the lawsuit is commercial, and then the Commercial Court has jurisdiction to consider the case.

The court decided to accept the appeal in form, and on the matter to cancel the appealed decision and again ruled that the Abu Dhabi Court for Family and Civil and Administrative Claims had no jurisdiction to consider the case in a qualitative manner, and the jurisdiction of the Abu Dhabi Commercial Court to hear it.

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