The distribution of company shares, the composition of founders, the director position, and events related to criminal cases continue to leave a number of questions on the agenda to this day.

The liquidation of “Matlubotsavdo” and new property relations…

On March 30, 2011, Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 94 of the Republic of Uzbekistan was adopted, liquidating the regional joint-stock companies of “Matlubotsavdo”. It was determined that their shares in trade, public catering, and other organizations would be sold as private property.

As part of the implementation of this resolution, on April 15, 2011, the founders of the Samarkand regional “Taʼminotsavdo” association held an extraordinary general meeting. In accordance with the meeting's decision, the association's 51% share in “Narpay Zamin Savdo” LLC was transferred to the company itself.

At that time, there were 25 founders within the company. Farogat Ochilova or her son Ulugbek Ochilov were not among them.

How did the shares change hands?

According to the authors of the appeal, in subsequent years some of the company's founders were removed from the company through various methods, and their shares were acquired by other individuals.

These situations also appear controversial from the standpoint of legislative requirements. Because according to Article 20 of the Law “On Limited and Additional Liability Companies”, a participant of a company must notify other participants in writing before selling their share to a third party.

According to the appeal, in these instances, other participants of the company were not given such notifications, and their right of pre-emption to purchase the share was violated.

Criminal case: what did the court say?

In 2017, a criminal case was initiated against Ulugbek Ochilov. According to the verdict of the Narpay District Court on Criminal Cases dated December 28, 2017, he was found guilty of causing massive damage to the company.

As noted in the court documents, in collusion with the then-director of the company, A. Rakhmonov, he embezzled flour products that were supposed to be distributed to the population at affordable prices.

The conflict surrounding the seal

The appeal states that in October 2017, a dispute also occurred regarding the company's seal.

According to the claim, certain individuals came to the store and demanded the company's seal, resulting in a conflict. Internal affairs bodies were contacted regarding this incident.

However, according to the appeal, the investigation was not completed because the documents gathered on the case were lost.

2019: Change of company leadership

In February 2019, a general meeting was held with the participation of some of the company's founders, and Farogat Ochilova was added to the ranks of the company's founders.

On March 16 of the same year, another meeting was held, and she was appointed as the director of “Narpay Zamin Savdo” LLC.

However, the applicants emphasize that not all founders participated in these meetings and some were not informed about it.

Court decisions and state registration

On May 26, 2025, the Samarkand inter-district court satisfied the claim regarding this case.

According to the court decision, certain actions by the Narpay District State Services Center in re-state registering the charter of “Narpay Zamin Savdo” LLC were found to be unlawful.

Appeal, cassation, and supervisory complaints filed against this decision were rejected, and the decision entered into legal force.

According to the regional justice department, the company's charter in the information system has been reverted to its 2018 status.

New claim

Following this, Ulugbek Ochilov filed a new statement of claim with the court.

Initially, he demanded to revert the company's charter to a specific date status.

Later, during the court proceedings, the subject of the claim was changed, and a new ruling was adopted by the court.

Lingering questions

The conflict surrounding “Narpay Zamin Savdo” LLC has been considered by various agencies and court instances for several years.

However, a number of important questions still remain open:

• was the distribution of company shares carried out in accordance with legal requirements?

• were all founders informed about the general meetings?

• to what extent were the state registration processes legal?

A final legal assessment to these questions can only be given by the court and authorized state bodies.

Effect.uz will continue its journalistic investigations into this matter.