Credit Union of Tianjia An District, the city of Huainan, Anhui Province v Realty Departmentof the city of Huainan, Anhui Province

ID:	TARP-137
Title:	Credit Union of Tianjia An District, the city of Huainan, Anhui Province v Realty Departmentof the city of Huainan, Anhui Province
Source:	website of the Supreme Court of the PRC
Parties:	Credit Union of Tianjia An District, the city of Huainan, Anhui Province v Realty Departmentof the city of Huainan, Anhui Province
Dispute Resolution Organ:	First instance: Superior People’s Court of Anhui Province; Court of appeal (fianl): the Supreme Court of the PRC
Year:	2000
Pages:	0
Author(s):
Keywords:	agreement, building construction, evidence, implementation, revocation of certificate, transparency
Abstract:	On 29 May 1991, the plaintiff, made an agreement with Golden Triangle Company (“Golden Triangle”) to co-establish the building. The building was finished at the end of 1993. The East building belonged to the plaintiff while the west building belonged to the Golden Triangle. On 25 June 1995, the defendant issued the certificate of housing ownership west building to Golden Triangle. On 24 April l1997, the defendant issued the certificate of housing ownership of East building to the plaintiff. On 9 July 1997, Golden Triangle applied to the defendant for revocation of the certificate of housing ownership issued to the plaintiff on the basis that the plaintiff failed to implement the agreement. The defendant approved this application based on unclear housing ownership. The plaintiff brought an administrative suit to the Intermediate People’s Court of Huainan, which dismissed the decision made by the defendant. Golden Triangle appealed to the Superior People’s Court of Anhui Province, which, on 27 April 1998, affirmed the decision made by the defendant. Based on this, Golden Triangle applied to the defendant for the certificate of housing ownership of the whole building and got the approval which was the decision of 1-2-(98)0139 (decision at issue). According to this decision, the plaintiff lost the ownership of any part of the building. The plaintiff sued at the Superior People’s Court of Anhui Province
Secured:	False
Download Article:	Available here