THE IMAGE USED HAS NOT BEEN  TAKEN DURING THIS SESSION.

Ara Hakobyan, the director of Kecharis Hotel Limited Liability Company, filed a lawsuit against Hovhannes Soghomonyan, the bankruptcy administrator of the debtor Armen Stamboltsyan, demanding that the auction of the real estate at 14 Aivazovsky street be declared void and based on that, between Hovhannes Soghomonyan and Arndane LLC. The auction sale agreement concluded on 10 December, 2021 for the same real estate shall be declared invalid, applying the consequences of invalidity.

It should be noted that Iravaban.net has published an investigation  about 70 auctions announced for the area at 14 Aivazovsky Street, the winners in which are related to Mihran Poghosyan.

On 2 October, the regular session of the mentioned case was held at the “Ajapnyak-2” seat of the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction, chaired by Judge Marianna Stepanyan. At the beginning of the session, she said that the representative of “Arndane” Nerses Aghababyan presented additional objections against Ara Hakobyan’s claim.

The lawyer reminded that a motion regarding the application of an accelerated trial in the case had been submitted, the plaintiff side presented objections and pointed out new facts that it wanted to address.

“The plaintiff party states in its position that the delay in the payment of the price of the property sold by auction is a basis for recognizing the auction as incomplete, which does not comply with the legislation. The party makes a broad comment and notes that the delay in payment indicates that the lot has not been sold. And after that, it follows that only the completed auction can be recognized as incomplete. These comments do not issue from the law,” the lawyer noted and referred to the RA Law “On Public Bidding”, according to which the lot must be sold, a protocol signed, and then the payment made.

According to Nerses Aghababyan, in this case, an “ordinary” auction took place, during which clear terms for the payment of the money were not defined, in contrast to forced auctions. According to the lawyer, the plaintiff referred to the order of the Minister of Justice of 2020, which entered into force on 14 April of the same year: “In our case, the auction took place on 28 December, 2018; and the said order cannot have retroactive effect.”

Ludvig Davtyan, the plaintiff’s representative, stated in court that the logic of the law is such that until the amount of the lot is paid, the auction cannot be considered completed. “In the protocol signed between the parties, it is also written that if the price of the lot is not paid within the period specified by the law, the auction is liable to be declared void. It is recorded like that in the record of the auction. The law stipulates that the period for paying the price of the lot is determined by the protocol and the announcement of public bidding.”

He once again insisted: failure to pay the lot price results in declaring the auction void. The judge asked how the plaintiff sees the restoration of his allegedly violated rights.

The lawyer noted that the obstacles to the registration of Ara Hakobyan’s property rights will disappear. “We believe that when the existing registration is abolished… I cannot say at this moment what we will do. From a legal perspective, it is not in my client’s interest to say what we will do.”

The other representative of the plaintiff added that before the initiation of the lawsuit, they demanded the party to register the right to the property, and the state registration of the right was suspended, on grounds independent of their will. “We are already interested just based on that basis.”

Nerses Aghababyan countered: The registration of Ara Hakobyan’s rights was suspended on numerous grounds, they are not 1 or 2. “The contract did not mention the area of ​​the plot, the ownership certificate number; handwritten changes were made in the contract, etc. In addition, the cadastral value of the land has not been paid.”

The court asked one more question to the plaintiff. The party has submitted applications to declare the auction both invalid and unfulfilled. “Now, in the end, should the auction be recognized as invalid or unfulfilled? You are not sure either what has happened or which means of protection to choose?”

In response, Ludvig Davtyan stated that there were so many violations committed by the defendants in the case that any violation can be justified, including the fact that the auction did not take place. “Based on the protection of our client’s interests, we have taken all possible legal measures. We are sure that there are grounds for both options: invalid or unfulfilled.”

Artur Apikyan, bankruptcy administrator Hovhannes Soghomonyan’s representative, announced in the court that the bankruptcy court had already assessed the basis of the auction.

“The court recorded that the immovable property belonging to Stamboltsyan and which is the subject of the dispute in this case is a property subject to sale within the framework of the bankruptcy proceedings. Even if the auction is declared invalid, it still does not mean that the plaintiff’s rights can be registered. It is a property included in the framework of bankruptcy and the bankruptcy administrator must submit it for auction. We think that the plaintiff cannot be an interested party, because the latter was not a party to the auction, he was not involved in it,” Artur Apikyan said, adding that in his opinion, the auction cannot be recognized both invalid and unfulfilled.

Ara Hakobyan’s representative Varazdat Asatryan noted, however, that the actions of the bankruptcy administrator were performed in gross violation of the procedures.

“The bankruptcy administrator has exceeded his powers and could not distribute the money in the presence of such grounds. He also could not extend the period of payment for the lot. There was falsification of documents, the parties falsified those documents. As much as we tried not to pursue that process, to develop this problem in the civil-legal domain, the vector constantly brings to the criminal-legal field. It seems the partners want to further develop that direction. The following happened: the money was transferred back from the protocol of the auction, after that a protocol was drawn up. They saw that it is possible to carry out the transaction, ignoring that there are registered rights of the 3rd party,” Varazdat Asatryan said.

Nerses Aghababyan countered the lawyer, reminding that a criminal case has been initiated in connection with this case, which is not related to the auction in which “Arndane” LLC was declared the winner, but to the previous auction in which the plaintiff was the buyer.

“If the claim is met, the claimant will not have any rights. The plaintiff demanded to recognize an auction in which he did not participate as invalid. An auction of a property of which the claimant was never the owner. If the claim is satisfied, Armen Stamboltsyan will become the owner of the property. And what will happen later, no one knows,” he mentioned.

The session was adjourned on the basis of notifying potential interested parties. The next court session will take place on 6 December.