The competent civil court ruled to reorganize and bankruptcy to dissolve a company between Bahraini and Asian, which is a “car” for the sale of vegetables and fruits in the central market, after the Asian partner caused the “Basta” losses and fled to his country.
The Bahraini partner, lawyer Musa Adnan, explained the story of that partnership, where he explained that his client submitted a list of a lawsuit to the competent court to reorganize and bankruptcy, in which he stated that he and the second defendant are partners in the first defendant, where he owns 10% of its shares of 100 dinars, while the second owns 90% of the shares of 900 dinars, which led to the latter’s uniqueness by taking decisions related to the management of the first defendant, which was characterized by mistake And arranged very large financial obligations on it; This affected its interest and interest, and this led to differences between them, which became between him and continuing to partnership.
He added that he notified the second defendant for his desire to exit, and offered him to sell his 10% share of the total shares for an amount of/100 dinars, but he did not receive a response from him, which prompted him based on the text of Article (480) of the Civil Code to submit his lawsuit, and request a solution and liquidation of the first defendant, based on that for the second defendant to arrange very large obligations on it Between them, it prevents the continuation of the partnership and the latter’s escape outside the country.
The court listened to the witness of the plaintiff, who stated that he knew the defendant and the second defendant by virtue of his work in the market as a owner of fruits and vegetables, and that the second defendant was running the shop owned by the plaintiff and working in it, and according to his knowledge, the shop is on him demands in the market, and according to what he heard from his workers that the management of the second defendant is not sound, and that the shop was “lost”.
The court assigned the prosecutor to submit a report to indicate the financial status of the company and its status and its assets in observance of all aspects of the lawsuit, so the lawyer Adnan stated that this is not possible because the company’s place is a “car” in the central market through which its goods are sold from vegetables and fruits on a daily basis, and he does not know if it has any assets.
The court broke out from nationality, passports and residence affairs at the Ministry of Interior whether the defendant is present within the country and the date of his departure, Ford responded that the aforementioned is outside the country since 7/1/2024, and there is no new entry to him for the country again, and accordingly, and with the last pleading session, the court decided to reserve the lawsuit for the ruling.
The court indicated in the reasons for the ruling that it reassured the witness’s witness to the second defendant arranged obligations for the company in the market and his escape outside the country.
She said that these reasons are dangerous, and the company cannot continue with it, and it is incarmented by that the second defendant possesses 90% of the company’s first shares, and he was the one who was running its place with the testimony of the claimant of the plaintiff and what the latter decided in his list, and the latter had left the country for more than ten months without return to it, and the company’s establishment contract, whose provisions constitute the law that governs the relationship, had identified cases of the company’s solution in Article (25) It is legally established in addition to referring the law in that.
The court added: “Whenever the court ends with the dissolution of the company, it is considered in a state of solution, and since the prosecutor decided his agent not to be aware of the existence of any assets for it, according to the fact that the shop is a (car) in the market, the activity is carried out through it, by buying and selling vegetables and fruits on a daily basis, and the responses of the authorities (the bank and the General Traffic and the Stock Exchange) have shown the absence of any assets for the company to be filtered, then the court ends at this time By dissolving the company and its expiry without any money that can be filtered; and then without the need to set a liquidator.
