The parties terminated the contract when bankruptcy proceedings began against the seller.
The insolvency practitioner contested the termination of the agreement, but was unable to submit the original paper. The buyer, in its turn, denied termination of the contract. The court eventually refused the insolvency practitioner.
The practitioner filed a new requirement - to collect the debt from the buyer under the contract, which, as previously stated, had not been terminated. In that dispute, the buyer took the opposite position: they indicated that the contract had been terminated and presented the agreement to the court. The court again refused the insolvency practitioner.
The trustee considers that the appearance of the original of the agreement in the second case is a newly discovered circumstance, which makes it possible to reconsider the first case. The courts do not support the trustee: he knew about the existence of the agreement during the period of the dispute.
The Supreme Court disagreed with this approach and stated the following:
- the defendant deliberately behaved inconsistently and in bad faith. In one case, they denied that an agreement had been entered into; in another, they presented it as key evidence;
- it does not matter that during the period of consideration of the dispute the insolvency practitioner was aware of the existence of that agreement;
- the defendant's concealment of evidence is a newly discovered circumstance. The case must be reconsidered.