Contract-work debt recovery in case A23-3986/20 was handled remotely through simplified proceedings, without attending a hearing. The Arbitrazh Court of Kaluga Region awarded RUB 150,697.35 in debt and RUB 5,521 in court-fee costs. Below are the original operative judgment, the limits of the established result and records useful for a similar claim.
⚖️ What is known about the case
On 3 August 2020 judge M.I. Pogontsev considered BOBMASTER LLC’s claim against Kaluzhsky mnogoprofilny derevopererabatyvayushchy kombinat Soyuz-Centr LLC. The operative judgment identifies a work contract dated 14 November 2017 and debt of RUB 150,697.35. The entire claimed principal was awarded, together with court-fee costs.
The original author’s note says the matter required preparing and sending documents because it qualified for simplified proceedings. The author welcomed the court’s prompt handling and development of digital commercial litigation. The experience illustrates the value of a documentary case; it does not promise identical timing or results elsewhere.
Operative judgment of 3 August 2020, case A23-3986/20 — Russian PDF, 1 page
It confirms the award and procedural route. This copy does not contain reasons, so it cannot establish the detailed work scope, objections or evaluation of evidence.
| Confirmed by the document | What must not be inferred |
|---|---|
| RUB 150,697.35 in work-contract debt | The precise work, acceptance records and objections in the case file |
| RUB 5,521 in court-fee costs awarded | The current fee for a new claim |
| Simplified proceedings | That every work-contract dispute proceeds without a hearing |
| The judgment is immediately enforceable | That money was actually received; payment is not evidenced here |
⚖️ When simplified proceedings are available today
Article 227(1)(1) of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code sets monetary limits of RUB 1.2 million for legal entities and RUB 600,000 for individual entrepreneurs. Part 2 covers specified documentary claims regardless of value, subject to its conditions and the exclusion of order proceedings. Value alone is therefore insufficient: check the claim basis, documents, order procedure and exclusions.
Article 228 provides for consideration without summoning the parties after document deadlines. The absence of a hearing does not remove the need for proof and timely replies. Where the Article 227(5) grounds apply, the court may move to ordinary rules. A substantial dispute over work quality or scope should not be treated as a formality in advance.
⚖️ Documents supporting work-contract debt
Civil Code Article 711 connects payment with the contract and delivery of the result: absent agreed advance payment, the general rule concerns payment after final delivery of properly completed work. Article 720 governs acceptance and notification of defects. A new claim should establish performance, the payment due date and outstanding balance, as well as the agreement itself.
| Record | Purpose | Typical check |
|---|---|---|
| Contract and appendices | Establish scope, price and payment terms | Amendments, stages and agreed extra work |
| Acceptance and delivery records | Prove performance and handover | Signatures, dates, reservations and connection to the contract |
| Payment records | Establish the unpaid balance | Advances, partial payments, allocation and set-off |
| Work correspondence | Show the parties’ positions | Quality objections, responses and dispatch evidence |
| Calculation and demand | Support the amount and pre-action stage | Period, due dates and dispatch to the recipient |
⚖️ Demand, filing and short procedural periods
For contractual monetary disputes in arbitrazh courts, Article 4(5) generally requires pre-action measures and thirty calendar days from dispatch of the demand unless law or contract specifies a different period or procedure. Retain dispatch evidence. The historical operative judgment does not disclose details of that case’s demand stage.
The court sets evidence and explanation deadlines, which should be checked in the order in your own case. Under Article 229, an application for a reasoned judgment may be filed within five days of publication. The ordinary appeal period in simplified proceedings is fifteen days from adoption, or from the full reasoned decision if prepared. Apply the procedural counting rules and actual dates rather than treating receipt of a paper letter as the only trigger.
Contract, delivery, payments and balance.
Applicable period and dispatch evidence.
Jurisdiction, procedure and full calculation.
Court deadlines, objections, judgment and enforcement.
⚖️ Frequently asked questions
Was the whole claimed principal awarded?
Yes. The operative judgment states a claim and award of RUB 150,697.35, plus RUB 5,521 in court-fee costs.
Is receipt of the money confirmed?
No. The published document establishes an award. Actual payment or enforcement requires separate evidence.
Can the case proceed without attending a hearing?
Simplified proceedings allow that. Availability depends on Article 227 and the particular case.
Is every claim below RUB 1.2 million simplified?
Check party categories, exclusions, the order procedure and statutory conditions. Value alone does not guarantee the route.
Why does the PDF not explain all recovery grounds?
Only the operative part is published. It must not be presented as a full reasoned assessment of the contract records.
⚖️ Primary sources and related cases
Checked on 9 October 2026. The complete original was read. Current provisions were checked separately, and the historical court fee is not used as a current tariff. Sources below are in Russian.
- Original operative judgment — PDF
- Arbitrazh Procedure Code Article 227: simplified case categories
- Article 228: consideration and documents
- Article 229: judgment and periods
- Article 4: pre-action procedure
- Civil Code Article 711: payment
- Article 720: acceptance
- Debt recovery against an LLC: pre-action procedure
- Defence against DGI’s debt claim