amount of claim, departmental claims, court decision: Investigation and court: Law enforcement agencies: Lenta.ru

share f5dd11f4c8ca205e6c736e4be9016742

[ad_1]

TASS: The Russian Ministry of Defense filed a claim for more than 38 million rubles against the Bauman Moscow State Technical University

Russian Ministry of Defense submitted lawsuit against Moscow State Technical University (MSTU) named after N.E. Bauman for more than 38 million rubles. The essence of the defense department's claims against the university is not disclosed.

The prosecutor's office of the Strategic Missile Forces will be involved in the case as another person

As reported TASS in the Arbitration Court, the issue of accepting the claim of the Ministry of Defense against Baumanka for the recovery of 38.3 million rubles was considered. The court decided to initiate proceedings in the case.

Related materials:

The court documents also say that the military prosecutor's office of the Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN) will be involved as another person in the case. At the same time, the essence of the defense department’s claim to the university is not disclosed. The case will be heard confidentially.

The Ministry of Defense has already filed a lawsuit against Baumanka

According to TASS This is not the first time the military department has filed a lawsuit against Baumanka. So, in 2024, the Ministry of Defense demanded to recover 413,399 rubles from the university for delays under the government contract. The university had to supply a ground robotic complex with attachments. The contract was concluded for 42 million rubles, the demands of the ministry were then satisfied.

owl wide 1200 e18427f587debddeca3190b6aae12e84

Photo: Vladimir Baranov / Globallookpress.com

In November 2024, the Russian Ministry of Defense filed a claim with the Arbitration Court Moscow claim against JSC “Vladimir plant “Electropribor”” on the recovery of 57.5 million rubles for failure to fulfill the terms of the agreement. “The plaintiff believes that the defendant did not fulfill his obligations under the contract,” the court was told at the time. Details of the case were not provided.

[ad_2]

Source link

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *