This was an appeal by Vendort Traders Inc (the “Appellant”) against an order of the Learned Commercial Court Judge dismissing its application for an order to. Vendort Traders Inc v Evrostroy Grupp LLC  UKPC 15 which dealt with the Daselina Investments Ltd ("Daselina") and Kirkland before the London. TOO EVROSTROY-A is a importer company with the industrial and NIC code of as per the official records. Current Investments. Trade Receivables. WEIZMANN FOREX STOCK EXCHANGE Sie sind der a try. This program if or games are interface with quickly. One can set VNC server, activate load, but once the alias are. Be used with imagine anyone who.
Mde Louise E. Blenman Justice of Appeal The Hon. Marcus Staff with him Mr. Adam Cloherty and Mr. Jeremy Child for the Appellant Ms. Tamara Cameron for the Respondent. The balance of RUR 29,, The SPA was governed by English law and contained an arbitration clause in the event of a dispute. The then owner of the company, Ms. Both parties submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal and participated fully in the proceedings.
No response was ever received to this demand as a consequence of which the respondent issued the statutory demand. In the court below, the appellant tried unsuccessfully to set aside the statutory demand under section 1 a i of the Insolvency Act, It has appealed the decision of the learned trial judge on grounds that there was no debt owing because the Award had not been enforced in the BVI and an unenforceable award could not form the basis of the statutory demand; there was a substantial dispute as to whether the Award was enforceable in the BVI because the Award was either procured by fraud or its enforcement was part of a fraudulent scheme to divest it of its assets; and that the learned judge erred in holding that it had accepted that the Award created an estoppel between it and the respondent.
Held: dismissing the appeal and ordering that the parties file submissions on costs within 21 days, that: 1. It is not necessary for an arbitration award to be first enforced before a statutory demand can be presented in reliance on it. Further, there is no statutory provision or common law principle obtaining in the Virgin Islands which prohibits an award holder from serving a statutory demand or a winding up petition based on an unenforced foreign arbitration award or judgment.
Section 28 of the Arbitration Act merely sets out the procedure for enforcing a non-Convention arbitration award and cannot be read as compelling the award holder to enforce the award before relying on it for the purpose of serving a statutory demand or presenting a winding up petition.
For a court to set aside a statutory demand on the basis that there is a substantial dispute as to the validity of the debt there must be so much doubt and question about the liability to pay the debt that the Court sees that there is a question to be decided. The allegations of fraud and misconduct had no bearing on the issue which was before the arbitral tribunal, that is, whether the balance of the purchase price was due.
Further, the allegation of fraud complained of by the appellant occurred in , long after the obligation to pay the debt under the SPA had become due. In the absence of any fresh evidence of a variation of the SPA, there is no substantial dispute that the Debt is owing and due or that this Award should be enforced. There could be no challenge to the process or to the rendering of the Award itself, the appellant having been given full opportunity to participate therein.
The learned judge was correct in acknowledging that the appellant was estopped save in exceptional circumstances, from re-litigating the issues which had already been decided by an arbitral tribunal of competent jurisdiction. The respondent had an arbitration award which was valid and binding having been issued by a tribunal of competent authority to whose jurisdiction both parties had submitted and which award had not been set aside or even attempted to be set aside.
The Award was a liability which was present, due and enforceable within the meaning of section 10 3 of the Insolvency Act, Section 10 3 of the Insolvency Act, applied. In the ownership of Evrostroy changed when Mr. Denis Vladmirovich Koltsov Mr. Elena Smirnova purchased the shares from Mr. Mamporia in Upon purchasing the company she sought to enforce the debt due under the SPA making a demand for payment in October and when this was unsatisfied, commenced arbitration proceedings before the LCIA in December Both Evrostroy and Vendort submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal and participated fully in the proceedings.
It rested its case entirely on the power of the court under section 1 a i of the Insolvency Act, to set aside a statutory demand where there is a substantial dispute as to whether the debt is owing or due. It is submitted that service of a statutory demand for a judgment is not execution of the judgment. In that case, the creditor presented a winding up petition after a statutory demand based on an arbitration award from London, remained unsatisfied.
The debtor company contended that there was a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds as the arbitration award was only enforceable by recognition under statute and this had not been done before the service of the statutory demand or the 12  1 Ch Further, the debtor contended that the award was subject to challenge on breach of natural justice principles.
No authority is cited for me for the proposition that a successful party of a foreign arbitration award is obliged and confined to enforce the award only by way of enforcement proceedings under the IAA and is thereby precluded from issuing a statutory demand based on a foreign arbitration award followed, if unsatisfied, by a winding up application on grounds of a presumption of insolvency.
Indeed, it is of critical note that there is no statutory provision or common law principle obtaining in this jurisdiction which prohibits an award holder from serving a statutory demand or a winding up petition based on an unenforced foreign arbitration award or judgment.
The effect of section 28 of the Arbitration Act20 is to merely set out the procedure for enforcing a non- Convention arbitration award; it cannot be read as compelling the award holder to enforce the award before relying on it for the purpose of serving a statutory demand or presenting a winding up petition. It simply does not go that far. Section 28 becomes necessary in cases where an award holder wishes to levy execution and therefore must first enforce the foreign award in 18 Paras.
An award by itself establishes that a debt is immediately owed; immediately enforcing such debt is an entirely different thing. Vendort further argues that Bannister J [Ag. Evrostroy in the present case had an arbitration award which was valid and binding having been issued by a tribunal of competent authority to whose jurisdiction both parties had submitted and which award had not been set aside or even attempted to be set aside.
Vendort also asserts that Bannister J [Ag. It has already been established that service of a statutory demand does not constitute enforcement. The onus is on the company to bring forward a prima facie case which satisfies the Court that there is something which ought to be tried either before the Court itself or in an action or by some other proceeding.
However, this decision is not to be taken to preclude carte blanche any consideration by the trial judge as to the soundness of the alleged dispute. It does so in petitions on the just and equitable ground, and it is only too easy for an unwilling debtor to raise a cloud of objections on affidavits and then claim that, because a dispute of fact cannot be decided without crossexamination, the petition should not be heard at all but the matter should be left to be determined in some other proceedings.
Whilst I do not in any way, therefore, seek to weaken the rule of practice as a general rule, I think that it ought not to be assumed to be inflexible and to preclude the Companies Court from determining the issue in an appropriate case simply because the debtor files mountains of evidence raising disputes of fact which require to be determined by cross-examination.
The court must, I think, reserve to itself the right to determine disputes — even perhaps in some cases substantial disputes — even perhaps in some cases substantial disputes — where this can be done without due inconvenience and where the position of the company, whether it be an English company or a foreign company, is such that the likely result in effect of striking out the petition would be that the creditor, if the established the debt, would lose his remedy altogether.
Mamporia lied to the arbitration tribunal when he claimed that Mr. Koltsov who was then listed as the sole director and shareholder of Vendort was an independent businessman, that he Mr. Mamporia as manager of Evrostroy worked with Mr. Koltsov and that Mr. Koltsov sold his shares in Evrostroy to Mr.
Mamporia for RUR10, Country Kazakhstan. Registration Date. Registration No. Location Kazakhstan. Year of Establishment. NIC Code. Products Plastic articles nes Send enquiry Trade advertising material, catalogues etc. Financial Details Paid up capital Rs.
Total Obligation of Contribution Rs. Why Us We are a reliable organization engaged in importer a qualitative range of industrial products Plastic articles nes, Trade advertising material,. Tell us about your requirement and our trade experts would help you get trade orders for your products Submit your requirement. Signatory Details S. Charges S. Prosecution Details S. Establishments Details S. Contact Details.
Email :. Website :. Trade Data. Reviews and Comments. Your Email address. Your Contact number.