By acting as representatives of a third party in the case, managing partner Vasily Dryga not only protected the client’s rights, but also prevented the seizure of property

In connection with the current conflict situation between the meat-processing enterprise and the owner of a neighboring site, the latter applied for registration of ownership of the cable line. At the same time, through this line, electricity is supplied to the transformer substation of the client Rezolut. The company was denied registration of ownership rights. Disagreeing with the decision of the Rosreestr Office, the company appealed to the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region with a statement declaring it illegal.

Earlier, the meat processing enterprise, which is a long-term client of the company, having reliable information about the absence of registered rights to the cable line, entered into an agreement for technological connection to the line by laying a new cable. These measures are planned for the transfer of the transformer substation from a neighboring land plot owned by the company to its own. Accordingly, the satisfaction of the opponents’ statement could prevent in the future the implementation of a project for laying cables and providing power supply to the client’s industrial complex.

Constantly monitoring information about disputes involving opponents of their clients, Rezolut lawyers received information about the consideration of the relevant case by the arbitration court and immediately ensured that the meat processing complex entered the case as a third party.

During the consideration of the case by the lawyers of Rezolut, under the direct supervision of the managing partner Vasily Dryga, the court presented convincing evidence and provided comprehensive explanations about the forces and means of which legal entity created the disputed cable line. Also, judicial acts on previously considered cases were attached to the case materials, which established the absence of society’s rights to the disputed line.

Based on the results of the consideration of the case, the court denied the application of Rezolut’s opponents.