This page focuses on expert evidence and the appellate stage of Russian case A40-150652/2019. For the property, contract price, payment terms and original first-instance document, see the main DGI purchase-price case.
Expert evidence in a DGI dispute over sale-contract price led to an appeal in case A40-150652/2019. The author’s note says the defendant proposed the expert organisation and the claimant’s team agreed, but DGI was dissatisfied with the valuation. On 12 August 2020 the Ninth Arbitrazh Appellate Court upheld the first-instance judgment and dismissed DGI’s appeal.
⚖️ What happened in the author’s case
The dispute concerned differences over the terms of a sale agreement. The author links the difficulty of such cases to price disagreement. This matter involved one court examination: the parties agreed to the organisation proposed by the defendant. DGI later appealed because it did not accept the valuation.
Those details about the examination come from the original note. The published operative part does not reveal methodology, amount, the expert organisation’s name or detailed objections. None are added, and dismissal is not attributed solely to DGI having proposed the organisation.
Operative ruling of 12 August 2020, 09AP-32974/2020, case A40-150652/2019 — Russian PDF, 1 page
| Fact | Source | Limit |
|---|---|---|
| The defendant proposed the expert organisation | Author’s note | The appointment order is not published here |
| DGI brought the appeal | Appellate PDF | Detailed grounds are absent from the operative part |
| The judgment of 25 March 2020 was upheld | Appellate PDF | Price and contract terms are not disclosed there |
| The claimant’s representative was P.I. Petrov | Appellate PDF | Establishes participation at this stage |
⚖️ Disagreement and review of an expert opinion
Proposing an organisation does not require a party to accept every subsequent conclusion. Concrete criticisms of the research matter. An unfavourable number alone does not identify defective data, methodology or calculations.
Arbitrazh Procedure Code Article 86 addresses the objects, materials, methods and substantiation in an opinion and allows expert explanations at a hearing. Under Article 71 evidence is assessed together; an opinion has no predetermined weight. A useful valuation objection identifies a verifiable defect and how it affects the disputed price.
⚖️ Repeat expert examination in arbitrazh proceedings
Article 87 distinguishes additional from repeat examinations. The former addresses insufficient clarity or completeness and new questions about previously examined matters. The latter may address doubts about substantiation or conflicting conclusions on the same questions and is assigned to another expert or commission. They have different grounds; neither is simply a route to a preferred number.
| Situation | What to examine | Procedural option |
|---|---|---|
| An answer is unclear or incomplete | The particular point requiring clarification | Explanations and consideration of an additional examination |
| Contradictions or doubts about substantiation | Specific methods, data and calculations | Consideration of a repeat examination under Article 87 |
| Only the final amount is unwelcome | Whether a research defect can be established | Support objections; a new examination is not automatic |
| A different organisation is suggested | Research grounds and competence | A different name does not replace reasons for the application |
The original note mentions two examinations as a possibility in price disputes. That is the author’s observation, not a statutory mandatory number. This case’s account reports one examination; the attached document does not establish that a repeat was ordered.
⚖️ Preparing a position on contract price
Compare the contract subject, property-characteristic records, appointment order and expert answers. Civil Code Article 446 provides for judicial resolution of contractual disagreements in specified cases and includes a six-month period for referring them to court. Check the dates and basis of a new dispute separately. The operative document does not explain time-limit compliance in this case.
The price or contract wording disputed.
Questions, data, methods and calculations.
A concrete defect and effect on the conclusion.
Explanations, additional or repeat examination, or appeal.
Appeal preparation connects objections with the first-instance reasoning and procedural history. The PDF establishes the appeal outcome but does not replace reasoned decisions, the opinion or case file. Cassation review and subsequent compliance have not been verified here.
⚖️ Frequently asked questions
Did DGI win the appeal?
No. The ruling of 12 August 2020 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of 25 March 2020.
Can a party criticise an expert it proposed?
Proposing the organisation does not replace assessment of the opinion. Criticism requires concrete evidence and procedural grounds.
Must every price dispute have two examinations?
No. Additional and repeat examinations require the corresponding grounds. The author reports one in this matter.
Is the court-determined price known?
No. The available operative appellate ruling does not state it.
Is the reason for dismissing the appeal established?
The attached PDF contains no detailed reasons. They must not be invented from the outcome alone.
⚖️ Primary sources and related practice
Checked on 9 October 2026. The complete original was read. Current provisions were checked separately from the 2020 outcome. Sources are in Russian.
- Original appellate operative ruling — PDF
- Arbitrazh Procedure Code Article 86: expert opinions
- Article 87: additional and repeat examinations
- Article 71: evidence assessment
- Civil Code Article 446: pre-contractual disputes
- DGI refusal and distinguishing property objects
- DGI debt claim withdrawn: a separate case