Tweet
COURT SATISFIED THE MOTION OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF RUBEN HAYRAPETYAN
Fri, 02/22/2013 - 19:38
News
Today Avan and Nor-Nork Court of First Instance, presided by Judge
Aida Davtyan, continued the trial of G. Chukaszyan against Ruben
Hayrapetyan.
During the previous hearing, the defendant submitted a motion to
discontinue the application on the grounds of time period limitation,
reasoning that Mher Arshakyan, the representative of Garegin Chuqanzyan
is not an authorized person and presented without a signature, so
the time period limitation should be used.
The respondent was also asked the court to postpone the hearing,
unless the applicant submits a written objection to the motion.
The representative of the plaintiff Karapet Badalyan objected
the motion in the written form, arguing that M. Arshakyan was an
authorized representative, with the authorization certified by a
notary, so the petition is baseless, because the claim was filed
within the time period prescribed by law. As a result, the court
granted the defendant's motion and delayed the hearing.
The next court hearing will be held on March 22.
It should be remembered that the plaintiff demands for the compensation
for the damage caused to his good reputation, honor, and dignity and
business reputation.
Author: Factinfo
Fri, 02/22/2013 - 19:38
News
Today Avan and Nor-Nork Court of First Instance, presided by Judge
Aida Davtyan, continued the trial of G. Chukaszyan against Ruben
Hayrapetyan.
During the previous hearing, the defendant submitted a motion to
discontinue the application on the grounds of time period limitation,
reasoning that Mher Arshakyan, the representative of Garegin Chuqanzyan
is not an authorized person and presented without a signature, so
the time period limitation should be used.
The respondent was also asked the court to postpone the hearing,
unless the applicant submits a written objection to the motion.
The representative of the plaintiff Karapet Badalyan objected
the motion in the written form, arguing that M. Arshakyan was an
authorized representative, with the authorization certified by a
notary, so the petition is baseless, because the claim was filed
within the time period prescribed by law. As a result, the court
granted the defendant's motion and delayed the hearing.
The next court hearing will be held on March 22.
It should be remembered that the plaintiff demands for the compensation
for the damage caused to his good reputation, honor, and dignity and
business reputation.
Author: Factinfo