Latest news with #HighCivilCourtofAppeal
Daily Tribune
3 days ago
- Business
- Daily Tribune
Co-founder wins BD20,000 after board ousting
A Bahraini co-founding partner has been awarded BD20,000 in damages after being removed from the board of a company he helped set up, denied his salary, and shut out of its records in breach of the original agreement. The High Civil Court of Appeal ruled that his fellow shareholders had frozen him out of the business two years after it was established, despite a signed agreement granting all partners equal shares, joint decision-making powers, and monthly pay under formal employment contracts. Trouble According to his lawyer, Hussain Salem, the trouble began when the other co-founders stopped sharing company documents and refused to give his client access to the books. When he pressed for transparency, they voted to expel him from the board and ceased paying his salary altogether.
Gulf Insider
3 days ago
- Business
- Gulf Insider
Bahrain: Co-Founder Wins BD20,000 After Board Ousting
A Bahraini co-founding partner has been awarded BD20,000 in damages after being removed from the board of a company he helped set up, denied his salary, and shut out of its records in breach of the original agreement. The High Civil Court of Appeal ruled that his fellow shareholders had frozen him out of the business two years after it was established, despite a signed agreement granting all partners equal shares, joint decision-making powers, and monthly pay under formal employment contracts. Trouble According to his lawyer, Hussain Salem, the trouble began when the other co-founders stopped sharing company documents and refused to give his client access to the books. When he pressed for transparency, they voted to expel him from the board and ceased paying his salary altogether.
Gulf Insider
02-03-2025
- Automotive
- Gulf Insider
Bahrain: High Court Blocks Man's Bid to Take Car as Ex-wife Holds Loan
A Bahraini man's attempt to gain control over his vehicle was blocked by the courts, which ruled that his ex-wife's name on the loan meant he could not take it across the border. The High Civil Court of Appeal dismissed his case, in which he sought to compel his ex-wife to authorise the release of the vehicle registered in his name. However, the loan used to purchase it remained under her name, lawyer Maryam Al Shaikh said. According to Al Shaikh, the plaintiff, her client's former husband, had purchased the vehicle under an arrangement between them. To cover the cost, she took out a loan, while he agreed to pay the instalments. Deposit He had covered the deposit and kept up with the monthly payments. After their divorce, she refused to visit the bank to sign off on an authorisation that would allow him to take the vehicle through border crossings. In response, he filed a lawsuit, which the lower court rejected. He then appealed the ruling. Judgment The appeal court found that the original judgment had correctly examined the case and applied the law. It determined that the reasoning behind the ruling was sound and that the decision addressed the grounds of appeal, which it upheld. The court further noted that the appeal had no firm basis in law or fact. Loan A letter from the bank, obtained during the lower court proceedings, confirmed that the loan had not been repaid in full. An attached payment schedule showed outstanding amounts and instalments yet to be paid. It stated that a clearance certificate for the loan could only be issued once the debt had been settled. Request To obtain this, the bank required the customer to visit its service desk and make the request. It also clarified that border-crossing authorisations could only be granted in person, with proof of identity. As both parties acknowledged that the loan remained unpaid and that the appellant had, in his final submission, refused to accept the bank's terms for transferring the loan to his name, the court ruled that his request had no legal foundation and dismissed the appeal.
Daily Tribune
02-03-2025
- Automotive
- Daily Tribune
High Court blocks man's bid to take car as ex-wife holds loan
A Bahraini man's attempt to gain control over his vehicle was blocked by the courts, which ruled that his ex-wife's name on the loan meant he could not take it across the border. The High Civil Court of Appeal dismissed his case, in which he sought to compel his ex-wife to authorise the release of the vehicle registered in his name. However, the loan used to purchase it remained under her name, lawyer Maryam Al Shaikh said. According to Al Shaikh, the plaintiff, her client's former husband, had purchased the vehicle under an arrangement between them. To cover the cost, she took out a loan, while he agreed to pay the instalments. Deposit He had covered the deposit and kept up with the monthly payments. After their divorce, she refused to visit the bank to sign off on an authorisation that would allow him to take the vehicle through border crossings. In response, he filed a lawsuit, which the lower court rejected. He then appealed the ruling. Judgment The appeal court found that the original judgment had correctly examined the case and applied the law. It determined that the reasoning behind the ruling was sound and that the decision addressed the grounds of appeal, which it upheld. The court further noted that the appeal had no firm basis in law or fact. Loan A letter from the bank, obtained during the lower court proceedings, confirmed that the loan had not been repaid in full. An attached payment schedule showed outstanding amounts and instalments yet to be paid. It stated that a clearance certificate for the loan could only be issued once the debt had been settled. Request To obtain this, the bank required the customer to visit its service desk and make the request. It also clarified that border-crossing authorisations could only be granted in person, with proof of identity. As both parties acknowledged that the loan remained unpaid and that the appellant had, in his final submission, refused to accept the bank's terms for transferring the loan to his name, the court ruled that his request had no legal foundation and dismissed the appeal.
