Mr. Lixin Zhao v Management of State-owned Assets of Autonomous region of Hui, Ningxia

ID:	TARP-140
Title:	Mr. Lixin Zhao v Management of State-owned Assets of Autonomous region of Hui, Ningxia
Source:	Website of the Supreme Court of the PRC
Parties:	Mr. Lixin Zhao v Management of State-owned Assets of Autonomous region of Hui, Ningxia
Dispute Resolution Organ:	First instance: the Superior People’s Court of Autonomous Region of Hui Zu, Ningxia; Court of Appeal (final): the Supreme Court of the PRC
Year:	2002
Pages:	0
Author(s):
Keywords:	agreement, business, capital, China, contract, evidence, lawsuit, name change, state-owned, transparency
Abstract:	Science & Technology industry General Company of Ningxia is the Competent Administrative Department At a Higher Level (“General Company”) of Comprehensive Service Department (“Service Department”), established June 13, 1987. It changed the name into Management Department of Equipments. The plainitff made an agreement on contracted responsibility for business operation contract with General Company on Dec 14, 1988. According to the contract, the plaintiff managed the Service Department, left with himself after he turned in the specified amount of profit. General Company appointed Mr. Zhao as manager of Service Department. On August 10, 1990, the name of the Service Department was changed into the Instrument Whole Set Department. On Dec 11, 1990 Instrument Whole Set Department was separated from General Company under an agreement and was directly responsible to the Science & Technology Institute of Ningxia (“Institute”). The name was changed into the Whole Set Department under this agreement and changed into the Whole Set Company later on. On Sept 25, 1992, the plaintiff was appointed as the manager of the Whole Set Company by the Institute. A new agreement on contracted responsibility for business operation, effective for three years as of Dec 31, 1992, was concluded between him and the Institute. On July 23, 1993, the Institute removed the plaintiff from his office as manager. The plainitff sued for this. During the course of the lawsuit, the Institute applied to the defendant for defining the assets of the Whole Set Company. The defendant made an official and written reply, i.e., the Pi Fu, that the assets of the Whole Set Company as well as the rights and interests of the capital were state-owned. The plainitff refused to accept this and sued.
Secured:	False
Download Article:	Available here