Nearly 1.4 billion soums. The Supreme Court's conclusion regarding the lack of precise calculations. Cancelled court decisions. And the ongoing court proceedings even after that. Attorney Shavkat Mavlonov is demanding answers from the High Judicial Council and the Qualification Board regarding this situation.
We are talking about an economic dispute between entrepreneurs. The case started in the Karmana Interdistrict Court and went through appeal, cassation, and revision stages.
According to the appeal, the lower courts decided to recover nearly 1.4 billion soums in favor of the plaintiff. However, later the Supreme Court reviewed the case in a revision procedure, canceled the decisions of the lower instances, and sent the case to the appellate court for a retrial.
Attorney Shavkat Mavlonov raises sharp questions regarding the shortcomings he believes were made by the judges in this case.
What shortcomings did the Supreme Court note?
One of the most important aspects of the case is the conclusions of the Supreme Court revision instance. The document states that the court of first instance went beyond the subject and grounds of the claim, dividing the claim into the principal debt and payments for the idle period of equipment.
It is also indicated that the appeal and revision instances did not give an appropriate assessment of these procedural violations in the first instance. Most importantly, the calculations regarding the recovered amount were not reflected in the court decisions.
The Supreme Court also noted that it is necessary to fully clarify how much equipment actually worked, how much was idle, and how these circumstances affected the recovered funds. Despite this, an amount close to 1.4 billion soums was recovered.
And the attorney’s question is very clear:
“They are groundlessly taking 1 billion 400 million soums from one entrepreneur and recovering it for another. What is the difference between the two entrepreneurs? If there is no basis, they should not recover it, they should reject it. Why should they recover it?”
This is the position of attorney Shavkat Mavlonov on the case.
“There is either interest or pressure”
According to Mavlonov, the procedural errors made by the judges are not accidental, and the fact that no internal investigation was conducted regarding them has led to new problems.
He evaluates this situation as follows:
“The second option for this is either there is interest, or there is pressure. There is no other option for this.”
According to the attorney, although the Supreme Court decisions indicate that procedural violations were revealed in the lower courts, no official investigation was conducted into this situation.
In his opinion, it is precisely because of this that the case was tried in the courts several more times.
“This is a crime!”
The case was later sent back to the Navoi regional court.
According to the attorney, if the decision of the first instance is cancelled, the nearly 1.4 billion soums previously recovered must be returned to the defendant.
He said that the case was reviewed four times at the appeal stage, and in the end, the complaint was left unexamined. At the same time, the issue of another 52 million soums of state duty arose.
Mavlonov gave a very sharp evaluation of this situation:
“This is a crime! This crime is continuing.”
According to the attorney, this is not just a simple procedural error, but a situation that seriously affects the financial interests of the entrepreneur.
What does Article 272 say?
Article 272 of the Economic Procedural Code was cited as the basis for leaving the appeal complaint unexamined.
The main objection in the appeal is that the argument was brought forward that the complaint was allegedly not signed by the head of the defendant.
The attorney denies this. According to him, the head of the enterprise has personally participated in court sessions since May 2023.
“How can it be said that it was not signed by the head of the defendant? We compared his signature — the head of the defendant personally participates in every single court session.”
In Mavlonov’s opinion, if doubts arose regarding the signature, there was an opportunity to clarify this situation.
He emphasizes that the grounds established in the Economic Procedural Code for leaving an appeal complaint unexamined are limited.
The attorney also points to paragraph 14 of Plenum Resolution No. 10 of the Supreme Court, stating that when doubts arise regarding the authority of the person who signed, first of all, they should be offered to provide appropriate evidence.
“Why another 52 million soums of state duty?”
According to Mavlonov, as a result of leaving the case unexamined over the signature issue, the entrepreneur is facing additional expenses again.
“The reason is simple — they want to return it and recover another 52 million soums of state duty.”
According to the attorney, if the appellate instance had reviewed the case on its merits, no new evidence had been brought by the plaintiff after the previous courts.
In his opinion, claims that should have been found groundless back in the first instance were shown not to have been sufficiently substantiated even at the Supreme Court revision stage.
“The Qualification Board is not working for us”
Another main demand in the attorney’s appeal is for the Qualification Board to give a legal assessment of the judges' actions.
Mavlonov says:
“The Qualification Board is not working for us.”
At the same time, he specifically emphasizes that he does not criticize all judges equally:
“I do not want to speak ill of all judges, we have very many very good judges. But among them, there happen to be such judges.”
In the attorney’s opinion, the task of the Qualification Board is not to punish judges, but to give a legal and professional assessment of their actions.
“We are only on the side of the law”
The author of the appeal emphasizes that the goal of his demand is not to get someone punished.
“The purpose of our appeal is not to punish anyone. Our goal is for the courts to be fair, for the courts to hear cases based on the law. We do not take the side of either the plaintiff or the defendant, we are only on the side of the law.”
In the attorney’s view, every procedural action in court must be justified by law and understandable to the parties.
The harshest evaluation
Mavlonov’s appeal also gives an even harsher evaluation of the judges' actions.
Comparing the Plenum resolutions of 2020, the conclusions at the Supreme Court revision stage, and the requirements of the Economic Procedural Code, he says that it is necessary to conduct a serious investigation into the circumstances of the case.
He even compared the actions of the judges to the activities of criminal groups:
“In the 90s, such criminal groups appeared — recovering other people's rights by force. ... And these ones recover debts even if they are not confirmed. What is the difference between them and those groups?”
This evaluation is attorney Shavkat Mavlonov’s personal position. His serious claims against the judges regarding corruption, abuse of official authority, and other grave accusations must be separately investigated and legally assessed by the relevant authorized bodies.
Mavlonov himself attempts to substantiate these thoughts with the decisions made by the Supreme Court on the case.
“Isn't this openly plundering an entrepreneur?”
The attorney’s final question poses the essence of the matter even more acutely:
“Look, isn’t this openly plundering an entrepreneur?”
In his opinion, if calculations are absent from the court documents, and the number and tonnage of equipment have not been determined, the legal basis for recovering the amount of 1.4 billion soums in such a case must be seriously re-examined.
The fact that the Supreme Court canceled the lower court decisions at the revision stage shows that serious attention was paid to these issues in the case.
Now the main questions remain open:
Why was an internal investigation not conducted regarding the procedural violations noted by the Supreme Court?
On the basis of exactly what calculation was the amount of 1.4 billion soums recovered?
Was Article 272 truly the basis for leaving the appeal complaint unexamined over the signature issue?
And most importantly — what legal assessment will the High Judicial Council and the Qualification Board give regarding these circumstances?
Effect.uz will continue to study the court documents and the positions of authorized bodies on this case.
