Warning: strtotime(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected the timezone 'UTC' for now, but please set date.timezone to select your timezone. in /var/www/paritet/data/www/paritetcenter.ru/libraries/joomla/utilities/date.php on line 56

Warning: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected the timezone 'UTC' for now, but please set date.timezone to select your timezone. in /var/www/paritet/data/www/paritetcenter.ru/libraries/joomla/utilities/date.php on line 198
Court Cases

2001

Article Index
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
All Pages

Arbitration case

 

LLG «K» was sued by GUGI to compel the conclusion of a supplementary agreement to the contract of non-residential premises lease. A specialist of LLC Economic and Law Center «Paritet» acted in the interest of the defendant. As a result of his work it was proved that the proposed additions contradict the Civil Code, in particular the principle of freedom of contract. In its decision, the Arbitration Court of Voronezh region agreed with the arguments of the representative of the defendant and dismissed the claims for GUGI to Company «K».

 

Civil case

 

P.V.M. appealed to the Leninsky District Court in Voronezh with a lawsuit for damages against the company «B «. Acting in the interest of the plaintiff and having performed necessary calculations and afforded proofs, an expert of Economic and Law Center «Paritet» proved that P.V.M. suffered losses due to unauthorized land cultivation by LLC «B» as he can not use his own and rented land.

 

Criminal case

 

B.N.P. was charged with misappropriation and embezzlement of concrete products, the responsibility for which is provided in Part 2 art.162 of the Criminal Code. As a result of checks of financial and business performance, it was proved that the fact of shortage of any building materials in the warehouse of the plant is absent, which, in turn, confirms the absence of corpus delicti. Moreover, the defender proved that the investigation bodies have not analyzed any payment documents certifying that B.N.P. paid for the concrete products. The investigator having evaluated defending proofs compiled by the attorney of the Centre, found B.N.P. not guilty in committing the crime. The criminal case was dismissed due to the absence of corpus delicti.


Arbitration case

 

Arbitral tribunal of the Voronezh region considered the case on the claim of SI «SES» (Sanitary & Epidemiological Station) to the company «K» for damages in the sum of 114,931 rubles. 70 kop. under the contract of lease. Representatives from the Economic and Law Center «Paritet» were on the side of the defendant. After getting acquainted with the case materials, as well as the documents submitted to him by the principal it was established, that while calculating debts on rental SI «SES» was basing on inappropriate tariffs. In addition, the decision of the Arbitration Court of Voronezh region previously entered into force has established the lack of debt between LLG «K» to SI «SES» on another lease, which in turn proves the absence of debt by contract, similar to that complained of. Considering the case the court took these circumstances into account, and the claims of SI «SES» were denied.

 

Civil case

 

CH.V.A. presented a petition against FSEI HVE of reprimand imposed on him as illegal and recovery of compensation for moral damage. The specialist from Economic and Law Center «Paritet» proved that the disciplinary action in the form of a reprimand was imposed for reasons conflicting with the current labor law, in connection with violation of procedures for imposing disciplinary action, as corresponding adequate evidence were provided to the court. Central District Court of Voronezh took the evidence into account and gave them a proper assessment, the claims CH.V.A. to find the reprimand illegal and recover moral damages were satisfied in full.

 

Criminal case

 

The Economic and Law Center «Paritet» was addressed to by V.P.YU. suspected of committing a crime under Art. 30 and Part 3. 159 of the Code (fraud) for the protection of her interests. Attorney from the Center filed the complaints in the defense of the suspect to the Public Prosecutor of the Voronezh region, indicating absence of any elements of the crime in the act committed by V.P.YU. as well as unfounded accusation. In particular the appeal contained proofs that V.P.YU. took all necessary measures to pay off insurance compensation. The prosecutor of Voronezh region having considered all above indicated circumstances found no evidence of indicia of a crime in V.P.YU.’s actions. The criminal case was dismissed.


Civil case

 

P.I.A. addressed to Khokholskiy disctrict court with a statement of claim concerning the partition of jointly acquired property in equal parts. A representative of the Economic and Law Center «Paritet» appeared at the side of the plaintiff. In the process of the preparation of the case to the trial the attorney submitted requests to the corresponding state and private organizations to prove the right of the plaintiff for the above-mentioned property and its actual cost. While passing judgement Khokholskiy disctrict court allowed for the position of the plaintiff’s representative and decided to satisfy her claims in full volume.

 

Arbitration case

 

A statement of claim of LLC «Z» to LLC «M» concerning collection of debts in rental payment was reviewed in the Arbitrary court of Voronezh region. A representative of the Economic and Law Center «Paritet» appeared at the side of the defendant. He proved that LLC «Z» incorrectly defined the size of rented area; did not provide the defendant’s agreement to the change of rental payment; incorrectly used the method of calculation of rental payment. The court refused to satisfy plaintiff's claims quoting proofs collected by the representative of our Centre.

 

Criminal case

 

A criminal suit concerning the fact of bribetaking was filed against L.V.I. (citizen). To protect his interests L.V.I. addressed to the attorney of the Centre. Basing on attorney’s claims there were held prosecutor's investigations on the fact of using impermissible methods in the course of investigation-operational procedures. In the course of checks significant violations of acting legislation were found in the process of case investigation. As at result the prosecutor of Voronezh region passed a resolution about dismissing a criminal case as there is no corpus delicti in the actions of L.V.I.


Civil case

 

The specialists of ELC «Paritet» in behalf of plaintiff Ch.V.A. applied to the Central district court with a statement of claim concerning invalidating removal, order of dismissal as well as restoration on work and recovery of compensation for forced absenteeism to Voronezh State Agrarian University n.a. Glinka. In the course of trial the specialists of the Centre proved that the defendant violated norms of laws of employment, in particular, the dismissal procedure was not complied with, the reasons and terms of temporary dismissal were not indicated which led to the moral injury. The court having agreed with plaintiff’s arguments satisfied his claims in full volume.

 

Arbitration case

 

N.R.V. addressed to the Arbritration Court of Voronezh region with a statement of claim against G.S.V. about requisitioning immovable property from alien illegal property. As a result of commission actions in the course of trial the specialists of our centre proved that G.S.V. having no legal grounds raises difficulties for N.R.V in using property belonging to him. The court having agreed with the plaintiff’s arguments, satisfied claims of N.R.V. in full volume.

 

Criminal case

 

State Investigation of Main Department of Internal Affairs of Voronezh Region open a criminal case against managers of LLC «P» K.L.I. and K.V.V. concerning a committed crime provided for in p. «а», p.2,art.. 199 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The attorney of the Centre acted on behalf of the suspects. In the course of forensic accounting expert examination with the participation of our specialists it was determined that LLC «P» legally used simplified taxation system but did not pay VAT, considering that VAT should not be paid in case this taxation system is used. The investigator agreed with the arguments presented by the specialists of the Centre and gave a ruling to stop proceedings on the case and termination of prosecution as there is no evidence of corpus delicti in the actions of the suspect K.L.I.


Civil case

 

Sh.A.B. addressed to a court with a suit concerning declaration of proprietary right and an object of carry-over construction. The specialists of «Paritet» centre acted in behalf of the plaintiff. In the course of trial by presenting proofs and statements our specialists managed to prove that there are grounds for termination of right for joint shared property for ground area and acknowledgement of the right for an object of carry-over construction. Ramonskiy district court of Voronezh region agreed with the conclusions of the plaintiff’s representatives and made a decision to satisfy his claims in full volume.

 

Arbitration case

 

LLC «М» addresses to the Arbitration court of Lipetsk district with a suit against LLC «D» concerning recovery of debts as per contract of carriage. A specialist of ELC «Paritet» acted in behalf of the plaintiff, in the course of case preparation by forwarding a claim to the defendant as well as while examining the merits of the civil case proved that LLC «М» properly executed it’s duties and LLC «D» was obliged to pay for the carriage services which was performed partially. The Arbitration court of Lipetsk region agreed with the conclusions and presented proofs of the plaintiff and satisfied plaintiff's claim in full volume.

 

Criminal case

 

B.Yu.A. addressed to ELC «Paritet», she was suspected in committing illegal tax refund from budget. As a result of attorney’s actions it was determined that the investigator committed procedural infractions, notably: B.Yu.A. was questioned without a defender, the questioning was performed according to the corresponding rules, the grounds for detention were not mentioned in the protocol, the rights of the suspect were not respected as were. On the basis of the case materials the attorney proved that actions performed by B.Yu.A., do not form corpus delicti in tax crime as in this case only the head of the organization or another authorized representative can be a subject of the crime being solely responsible for presenting tax returns, and B.Yu.A. is neither of them. The criminal case was dismissed.


Civil case

 

Khokholskiy District Court of Voronezh region considered civil lawsuit of CH.T.V. against S.I.V. about invalidating the will invalid because of violations of the rights of other heirs as a reduction in shares in the estate. A barrister from Economic and Law Center «Paritet» acted in behalf of CH.T.V., the plaintiff, our specialist proved that the will was not signed by the testator but the other person not entitled to sign it, which is contrary to paragraph 3 of art.1125 of the Civil Code. Having examined all the materials of the case and given the estimate to all the evidence Khokholskiy District Court of Voronezh region decided to invalidate the will.

 

Arbitration case

 

LLC «G» presented a claim in the Arbitration Court of Voronezh region against Company «H» concerning recovery of amount of unjust enrichment. A specialist from Economic and Law Center «Paritet» was a representative of the defendant. Based on expertise, held by the request of the defendant’s representative, it was proved that the estimate includes costs not stipulated for by the legislation. On these grounds the Court of Arbitration of the Voronezh region made a decision to dismiss the claims.

 

Criminal case

 

Criminal case concerning crime under Part 3, art.159 of the Criminal Code against V.I.U. As a result of lawyer’s actions (expert from Economic and Law Center «Paritet») and a comprehensive study of the criminal case, it was shown that V.I.U. committed no actions aimed at fraud, as he took measures that made illegal payment of insurance compensation impossible. By the decision of the Central District police station in Voronezh the criminal case was dismissed due to lack of corpus in V.I.U.’s actions.


Civil case

 

In the interest of Sh., the plaintiff, for trial in the Levoberezhnyi court of Voronezh concerning recognition of property rights to the apartment, our specialist worked out tactics which helped to recognize the right of the plaintiff to own the disputed property. In its decision the court considered the arguments of specialist from Economic and Law Center «Paritet», in particular the fact that the defendant had not acquired a legal basis for the emergence of property rights to the apartment due to breach of contract housing with the labor participation of citizens and had no right to register right of property.

 

Arbitration case

 

Case number A14-9603/2007-446/24 concerning invalidation of the order of Federal tax agency's inspectorate about prosecuting INC «B» for tax violations. The specialists of Economic and Law Center «Paritet» revealed an infringement of the decision-making procedure on basis of tax audit, which served as a ground for the Nineteen Appeals Court of Arbitration to declare the order nonconforming to the norms of Section 2, Article. 153 of the Tax Code.

 

Criminal case

 

Criminal case against Ch.K.Sh., a citizen of India, on a charge of committing a crime under part 1 of article 188 of the Criminal Code. As a result of commission actions of our lawyers to establish the factual circumstances of the case and careful selection of evidence it was proved that the actions of CH.K.SH. contained no elements of corpus delicti. The investigator took these circumstances into account and on the basis of Art. 24 of the Code made the decision not to institute criminal proceedings in the absence of corpus delicti in the deeds of Ch.K.Sh.


Civil case

 

D.V.P. sued Open Insurance Joint-Stock Company «R» to recover the sum of insurance compensation. A specialist from Economic and Law Center «Paritet» acted in behalf of the plaintiff; he proved that OS «R» did not fulfill its obligation to pay insurance money at occurrence of loss. Judicial board on civil cases of the Voronezh Regional Court issued a decision to recover the sum of insurance compensation, legal costs to the federal budget and compensation for moral damage from the Open Insurance Joint-Stock Company «P».

 

Arbitration case

 

LLC «T» appealed to the Arbitration Court of Voronezh region with a claim to the company «B» on the recognition of the transaction invalid. Acting on behalf of the defendant, experts from Economic and Law Center «Paritet» proved that the transactions entered into between Company B and E.I.L, «T» company’s employee, was made in the interests of LLC «T», and also approved and executed by LLC «T» . The Arbitration Court of Voronezh region made a decision to refuse the claims of LLC «T».

 

Criminal case

 

A criminal case on the grounds of a crime under part 1 of article. 222 of the Criminal Code was filed against R.A.V. The interests of R.A.V. were defended by a barrister of Economic and Law Center «Paritet», in the course of the investigation it was proved that R.A.V. stored a rifle and ammunition legally, he found a gun but could not give it out due to ill health condition. Senior investigator of the Northern Kominternovsky police department Voronezh ordered to dismiss the criminal case due to a lack of evidence.


Civil case

 

M.I.G addressed to the Central District Court of Voronezh with a claim to the Territorial Directorate of Federal Agency for Management of State Property in the Voronezh region, Central Bank of the Russian Federation, Territorial Directorate of Federal Agency for Management of State Property concerning recognition of ownership of immovable property by way of privatization. Representative of the plaintiff from the Economic and Law Center «Paritet» sent requests to various government agencies, their responses confirmed an absolute title of the plaintiff. Central District Court of Voronezh, having evaluated and examined the evidence, decided to recognize M.I.G’s. title of the apartment by way of privatization.

 

Arbitration case

 

GUGI filed claims against Company «K» concerning termination of the rental agreement and eviction due to delayed payment and partial payment of rent. A specialist from Economic and Law Center «Paritet» proved that the debt, which is indicated by the plaintiff was unreasonably determined, without proper grounds, the plaintiff did not provide any evidence of delay in payment partial payment; there was also no significant breach of the contract which means there was no reasons for for termination of the lease and eviction of LLC «К» . The Nineteenth Arbitration Appeal Court decided to dismiss the claims.

 

Criminal case

 

The criminal case was filed on the grounds of crimes under Art. 159 and 195 of the Criminal Code against K.A.G. To protect his interests K.A.G. addressed to the experts of Center «Paritet»; as a result of investigations of the case they provided evidence of absence of fault in the actions of K.A.G. The conclusions of the investigator about K.A.G.’s guilt in committing a crime under Art. 195 of the Criminal Code were only based on the testimony of witnesses who were subordinate to K.A.G. The witnesses did not possess any credible information. Given the conclusions of the defense, the criminal case was dismissed due to a lack of evidence.


Civil case

 

Sh.V.R. addressed to Sovyetskiy district court of Voronezh with a statement of claim concerning a recognition of property title of 1/3 of a flat as succession. Sh.V.R. and B.V.I. contracted a marriage. B.V.I. passed away in 2010. B.V.I. had no will left. Sh.V.R. did not enter succession by applying to a notary to enter succession and receive a certificate of proprietorship. A specialist from Economic and Law Center «Paritet» proved that Sh.V.R. commited acts proving a factual succession, such as living in the flat, paying the bills, and committing al actions necessary for maintaining inheritable property. Taking the above mentioned into account, Sovyetskiy district court of Voronezh took a decision to satisfy plaintiff’s claims.

 

Arbitration case

 

LLC «DBI» addressed to the Arbitration court of Tambov region with a suit against LLC «А» concerning indebtedness as per contractor’s agreement on building and assembly jobs. A specialist from Economic and Law Center «Paritet» acted in behalf of the plaintiff. Our specialist collected and presented evidence of completing building and assembly jobs in full volume, in due course and in the order established by law and contract. Having evaluated the above-mentioned proofs and evaluated the defendant’s reasons, the Arbitration court of Tambov region satisfied the demands of LLC «DBI» in full volume.

 

Criminal case

 

A criminal case in relation to a crime provided for in p.«а» p. 2 art. 199 of Criminal Code was commenced against P.D.V. A barrister from Economic and Law Center «Paritet» guarded interests of P.D.V. As a result of barrister’s actions and by the results of forensic accounting expert examination which was performed with the participation of our specialists, it was proved that the actions of P.D.V. contained no fault. The investigator of special department of Department of Internal Affairs of Voronezh region took a decision to dismiss a criminal case against P.D.V. due to a lack of corpus delicti in his actions.


Arbitration case

 

JSC «V» took legal action against JSC «Managing Company of Zheleznodorojny city district» with a statement of claim concerning debt collection for delivered heat energy. Interests of JSC «V» were represented by the specialists of ELC «Paritet». In the trial specialists of the Center presented documents proving lawfulness and relevance of submitted charges. As a result of work done by employees of the Center, the defendant acknowledged the claim and discharged the indebtedness in full volume in the course of the trial. The arbitration court stopped proceeding on the case due to the fact that the defendant acknowledged the claim. LLC «К» took legal action against LLC «S» with a statement of claim concerning debt collection, recovery of penalty and interests amount under contract agreement for using money means not belonging to the company. The claim, the statement of claim were drafted and the interests of LLC «К» as a principal in the Arbitration Court of Voronezh Region were represented by a specialist of ELC «Paritet». In the course of work the employees of the Center collected and obtained necessary job completion reports, reconciliation statements, inquiries and other written evidences, proving the presence and the amount of indebtedness, penalty and interests for using the money means not belonging to the company. By judgement of the Arbitration Court plaintiff's claims of LLC «К» were answered in corpore. LLC «М» applied to court with a suit against IE «S» concerning an amount of unjust enrichment, interests for using money means not belonging to the company, compelling to vacate occupied nonresidential premises, used by IE for entrepreneurial activity. The interests of IE «S» were represented by specialists of LLC «ELC «Paritet». In the course of work specialists of ELC prepared and directed a statement of defense to the Arbitration Court of Voronezh Region, obtained and collected necessary documents, formed and supplied evidence, proving the fact of absence of defender’s unjust enrichment. By judgement of the Arbitration Court a case of LLC «М» was dismissed. The Nineteen’s Arbitration Court of Appeal left the above-stated judgement without alterations and the appeal of LLC «М» - not granted.

 

Civil case

 

«LLC «Paritet»» received an appeal from P.N.P. – a buyer in contract for purchase of estate and dwelling house from U.A.V. – for drafting a statement of claim on the issue of withdrawal of encumbrance (mortgage by effect of law) juridically in view of seller’s refusal to solve the issue voluntary. In the course of case preparation for trial an employee of ELC «Paritet» directed to U.A.V. a written claim with a request to withdraw an encumbrance voluntarily, in case of his refusal – by judicial procedure. After receiving a written claim U.A.V. voluntarily performed all lawful actions in order to withdraw the encumbrance. Administration of urban district of Voronezh went to the law with an suit against «С», including in favour of «М», «Zh», including in favour of «А» concerning denunciation of social rent contract of a dwelling house (a flat in the house, which in plaintiff’s opinion is under the threat of collapse), eviction and moving into another dwelling house as per social rent contract. Interests of defendant «С», including in favour of «М» were presented by specialists of LLC «Paritet» who prepared and presented to court a notice of opposition against a statement of claim, and obtained necessary documents. In the course of trial a specialist of LLC «Paritet» proved that declared plaintiff’s claims to defendants are not justified and do not comply with acting legislation: there are no documents, proving the house to be under the threat of collapse and accordingly there is no basis for enunciation of social rent contract and eviction and moving tenants into another housing with worse living conditions and smaller living area. By judgement of the Court the suit was dismissed.

Members of the Voluntary Society for Gardeners "P", "B" and "C" applied to the LLC "EOC" Parity "" with a request of legal assistance to protect their legitimate rights and interests that threaten the established in breach of the law partnership of nonprofit horticultural m "P ". Experts of the center have been prepared and filed in court to claim for annulment of SNT SNT Charter "P" and redemption in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities. Plaintiffs represented by experts of the center, who collected and submitted to the court all the objective evidence of the validity of claims of plaintiffs. A review of the court had been fully satisfied the claims of members of the community gardeners.

 

Criminal case

 

«LLC «Paritet»» received an appeal from S.N.I. – a complainant in criminal case, commenced against P.V.B. upon attempted rape of S.N.I. Interests of S.N.I. were presented by a barrister of LLC «Paritet». As a result of evidence collection and filing corresponding applications in the course of trial the barrister proved the accused guilty in attempted rape of S.N.I. By the sentence of Liskinskiy district court the accused was found guilty of the completed offence, compensation for moral injury was levied in favour of S.N.I.


Civil case

 

Mr Tch. addressed to «ELC «Paritet»» with a request of legal aid in the issue of restoration on work, payment recovery during the period of involuntary absence from work and compensation of moral damage. Specialists of the centre prepared and brought a statement of claim to the court against an organization – employer. Further on, representing interests of the plaintiff Tch., the employees of the centre represented satisfactory proofs of illegality of employee’s dismissal. The judge satisfied plaintiff’s demands in full volume. By the decision of Court of Appeal the above-stated judicial decision was left without alterations.

LLC «V» addressed to a district court with a suit concerning restoration of a moral damage caused by M. (employee) to an employer at the amount of 200 thousand rubles. The interests of M. were represented by the employees of ELC «Paritet» who promptly prepared and brought to court a counter-plea to a statement of claim and demanded all necessary documents. In the process of judicial sittings the specialists of the Centre proved that M. due to his duties of office provided for by the labour contract did not accomplish his functions connected with direct service and utilization of money means, goods and other property. The inventory of holdings which resulted in detection of shortage and damage to property was performed with violations of law, and inventory reports are not acceptable, reliable or trustworthy proofs of the case. The plaintiff’s claim was rejected by the decision of the judge. The court of appeal did not alter the decision of the district court.

«О» bank brought to court a statement of claim concerning recovery of debts as per the credit with debtors Tch. and D. for the amount of 18 704 922 rubles where the amount of debts of the credit (with the account of interests) is 1 303 858 rub., and 17 401 064 rub. is fine and penalty (forfeit). The interests of defendants Tch. and D. were represented by a specialist of LLC «ELC «Paritet»». The centre brought to court objections to the statement of claim of the bank, during judicial sittings they presented conclusive proofs of intentional and ungrounded increase of the penalty during a prolonged period of time which is a base for its reduction. By the decision of the court the bank’s statement of claims were satisfied partially at the amount of 1 592 305 rubles.

 

S., L., N., addressed to ELC «Paritet»» with a request for legal help concerning cancellation of shared equity construction agreement and recovery of money means paid as per agreement to the management company as well as penalty costs and compensation for moral damage. The specialists of the centre prepared statements of claims and presented them to court. Further on, presenting interests of the plaintiffs during court session the specialists of the Centre presented compelling evidence of defendant’s default on commitments as per shared equity construction agreements and causing property losses to plaintiffs. The courts satisfied plaintiffs’ statements of claims in full volume. The total amount of recovered losses was more than 7.5 mln. rubles. By the decision of the courts of appeal of the Voronezh regional court the above-mentioned judicial decisions remained unaltered.

 

Criminal case

 

N. addressed to LLC «ELC «Paritet»» being victim of a criminal case against U, G, A as per clauses 162 p.4. p. «b», 105 part 2., p.p. «a, d, dz, z», 158 p.4 p. «b» and 222 part 2 of Criminal Code of Russia. The interests of N. were represented by a barrister of the Centre. As a result of proofs gathering and representation as well as submitting corresponding statements of claims the barrister proved the guilt of the accused of armed assault, homicide with the application of weapons in relation to relatives of disadvantaged N. By the sentence of Voronezh regional court the accused were acknowledged guilty and sentenced to prolonged terms of deprivation.

 

Arbitration case

 

M. addressed to ELC «Paritet» with a request for legal assistance concerning concussion to LLC «М» (its executive department) to provide her as a party of the Company with documents of finance and business operations of the Company. Her written requests addressed to the Company were rejected that is why the specialists of ELC «Paritet» prepared and sent a statement of claim concerning the obligation to grant copies of documents of finance and business operations of LLC «М», the statement was directed to the Arbitrary Court. In the course of judicial sessions the specialists of the Centre proved that the refusal to grant the above-mentioned documents to the participant of LLC is illegal. By the decision of the Court the lawsuit of M was satisfied in full measure.

 

Private entrepreneur Z. Addressed to «Paritet» centre with a request for legal help in recovery of 350 thousand rubles of insurance benefit from insurance company «Р» as a damage in fire in the shop where the equipment and goods and material were insured. The specialists of the centre prepared and applied to the Arbitration Court of Voronezh region with a statement of claims, they also gathered and presented to the court compelling evidence that the defendant’s refusal to cover insurance benefit was unjustified. In the course of court sessions considering indisputability of the proof presented by the plaintiff’s representatives, the defendant took a decision to sign an amicable settlement agreement with a plaintiff and pay off the insurance benefit to Z. The arbitration court approved the above-mentioned agreement.