The "Reality Partnership" was implemented and it was decided to remove his name from the register of 3 companies
Dubai Courts acquit “Khaliji” of debts implicated by his brother
The man granted his brother a power of attorney allowing him to sign contracts for purchase or sale of shares.
archival
Muhammad Naguib: "The plaintiff was surprised by the issuance of judicial rulings against the defendant companies, and it turned out that they were burdened with debts."
picture
The Dubai Court of First Instance ruled to prove the sham partnership and management of three companies established by his brother in his name by a (Gulf Arab) man, and cleared him of debts estimated at tens of millions that had accumulated on those companies, and ruled to remove him and strike his name from the register of partners in them.
It also ruled, in the commercial case, to establish a partnership and management of the reality of the defendant’s brother in the companies referred to, and to add his name instead of the plaintiff in the register of partners and commercial licenses for those companies. Rather, it ruled to publish the judgment in two widely spread newspapers, and the case is still awaiting the appeal and cassation stages to be resolved in a final and final manner. .
In detail, a Gulf person filed a lawsuit before the Dubai Courts, stating that he granted his brother a legal power of attorney in October of 2016, certified before the notary public, allowing him to establish companies of all kinds, sign purchase contracts or sell shares, change the trade name and all the consequent procedures.
A representative of the plaintiff’s defense, Legal Counsel Muhammad Naguib, said that the agency of the plaintiff’s brother stipulated that the defendant be granted all powers in managing the companies in terms of technical, administrative and financial terms by ending banking transactions, signing checks, appointing employees and ending their services, and waiving for himself and for others the plaintiff’s shares in the companies Either for a fee or for nothing.
He added that based on the agency contract, the brother bought shares in a contracting company in its branches and changed its name, and registered shares in the name of his wife. On the contract as a witness and not a contracting party with rights or obligations.
He pointed out that the plaintiff was later surprised by the issuance of court rulings against the defendant companies, and after research and investigation it was found that they were burdened with debts amounting to about 100 million dirhams.
And last October, the plaintiff canceled his agency for his brother, and demanded the judiciary to invalidate the actions of including him as a fictitious partner in those companies, because fraud and unfairness had been proven by the defendant, who had used the agency to involve him as a fictitious partner in them, and his mismanagement caused them to incur heavy losses and debts.
The plaintiff submitted a list of a previous lawsuit between the defendant and another party who owned stakes in one of the defendant companies, in which he admitted that he is the partner and the actual manager of the companies.
For his part, the brother's defense submitted a memorandum requesting that the case not be accepted against him and his wife (the fourth defendant in the case), and the case was rejected for lack of authenticity, proof and lack of interest.
After examining the request, the court decided to assign an accounting expert, and the expert concluded in his report that all financial matters related to the companies were under the control of the defendant’s brother and another partner, as well as all banking transactions, companies’ balance sheets, and the distribution of profits and losses.
The expert report confirmed that the actual owner of all the shares of the defendant companies, and the one responsible for paying all their debts, is the defendant's brother, and that the partnership of the latter's wife and his brother the plaintiff is nothing but a fictitious partnership.
On the basis of the report and examination of the documents, the court concluded that the plaintiff was a fictitious partner, who did not contribute to the capital or receive any profits.
Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news