A merchant accused his partner of forcing him to issue a trust receipt worth 310,240 dirhams, and the Al Ain Court of First Instance ruled to obligate the plaintiff to the amount of the trust receipt after he failed to provide evidence of the validity of his accusation to the partner.
In the details, a man filed a lawsuit against a merchant, demanding that he pay him 310 thousand and 240 dirhams with obligating him to pay fees and expenses, noting that the defendant received the said amount from him with a pledge to return it last November, but he did not return it, and attached to the lawsuit a receipt with a signature merchant.
While the merchant submitted a reply memorandum in which he insisted that he did not receive any amounts from the plaintiff, and demanded the inclusion of two new opponents in the lawsuit: the first is a poultry trading company, and the second is a real estate company, indicating the existence of commercial transactions for the purpose of investment and partnership between the plaintiff and the first litigant to be entered, for which no contracts were issued. And that the plaintiff was receiving, in return for the amounts delivered from him, security checks, whether written for his personal account or the second opponent to be entered.
He stressed that under threat of threat, the declaration issued the case document as a guarantee for the check drawn from the first-entry opponent and appended to the signature of the second-entry opponent as a manager, and submitted for the execution of bounced checks for the same claim amount of 310 thousand and 240 dirhams, in addition to the plaintiff obtaining multiple checks still in his possession, and a request to delegate an expert My account to show the relationship between the two parties and the introduction of new litigants in the lawsuit.
In the ruling, the court stated that the value of the receipt, which is a customary document appended to a signature attributed to the defendant, is not challenged by any appeal, so it is an argument against him by what was stated in it that he received the amount received from the plaintiff with his pledge to return it to him, pointing out that what the merchant held from his exposure For compulsion to release the statement to the plaintiff, as he did not provide evidence for his claim, and then the case before him is valid and established. The court rejected the request to include a poultry trading company and a real estate company in the lawsuit because there was no link between the check subject of the executive document and the amount subject to the receipt and delivered to the defendant as a personal debt.
#merchant #accuses #partner #forcing #sign #receipt #dirhams
