Section 8 The word "force
majeure" means any cause whatsoever. It would be good. It can not be
prevented even if the person who is experiencing it. It is a good idea to be
cautious of the person and situation.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
8509/2559.
The Labor Protection Act, BE 2541
(1998), Section 75 does not prescribe that the force majeure causes the
employer to cease to be a serious offender, so that the employer is unable to
conduct his normal business. Only stipulates that in the case of the employer
is necessary because of the significant impact on the business operation of the
employer and can not conduct business as usual. The employer may stop all or
part of the business temporarily. The plaintiff's temporary stoppage of
employment only in the production of car stereo by factory. Parts produced by the
plaintiff to be purchased for the production of car stereos, floods, floods,
unable to carry out the production of parts delivered to the plaintiff. This is
why there is a direct impact on the economic crisis in the plaintiff's
business. The plaintiffs are required to temporarily stop some operations. Act
of Labor Protection Act, BE 2541, Section 75
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6617 - 6619/2559.
The Court of First Instance
delivered a judgment on September 6, 2004. The plaintiff, who is a creditor
under the verdict, would like to enforce the case under the verdict within 10
years from the date the Court of First Instance has a verdict in the first
paragraph of Civil Code Section 271, but the plaintiff has filed a petition to
submit the defendant on the day. On July 25, 2014, after 9 years of
imprisonment, the imminent execution of the lawsuit was considered a defect.
The plaintiffs do not take action very early judgment to the defendant, which
the Court ruled that. The plaintiff's request for extension of the enforcement
period has no special circumstances and no force majeure. The Court of First
Instance has ruled that there are no grounds as plaintiff claimed in the
petition. The fact that the plaintiff is not a defendant in the plaintiff's
case. On the request for extension of the enforcement period, dated September
8, 2014, there are grounds to extend the period. The report on the results of
the submission is not in the expression. The plaintiff can submit the request
for the execution of the lawsuit and the request for extension of the
enforcement period is dated October 1, 2014. The plaintiff knows that the
defendant is working at the company, which is within the same enforcement
period. It is a special circumstance or force majeure. An appeal is made at the
discretion of the Court of First Instance to hear the facts. It is an appeal in
fact. When the case has the amount of dispute in the appeal no more than 50,000
baht, it is forbidden to appeal in the facts of the Civil and Commercial Code,
Section 224, paragraph one, the appeal of the plaintiff, even if the appeal is
in fact related to the proceedings of the proceedings. The Court of First
Instance, which is not related to the content of the case, the couple dispute.
It must be prohibited by such provisions as well.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4197/2559.
Defendants have the right and
benefits under the promotion certificate of the Board of Investment. However,
the defendant can not import raw materials and are exempted from import duty on
goods for export under the conditions specified. The imported raw materials
were burned. The defendant is not a contributor or contributor, negligent or
negligent. And it is a force majeure. The defendant did not violate or do not
comply with the conditions set forth intentionally. And this is a circumstance
beyond what the defendant can enforce. The defendant is encouraged to receive
exemption of import duty on imported raw materials because the state needs to
promote investment. Focus on the benefits of creating jobs for people. The
people do not consume raw materials or imported goods, which will cause the
state to lose their trade balance, which can be seen from the conditions
prescribed by the Board of Investment to import raw materials imported to
produce goods for export only. Before the fire, the raw materials imported to
the defendant are exempt from import duties. When imported raw materials are
destroyed, they can not be produced for export and raw materials can not be
consumed in the country. And it is impossible for the defendant to comply with
the conditions set forth so that the defendant can not bring raw materials to
produce goods for export under the conditions prescribed by the fire.
Therefore, it is not necessary to withdraw the rights and benefits that the
defendant received under the promotion.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3999/2559.
Although the defendant confirmed that the
ship may dock before schedule due to natural disaster under the Laycan contract
and a force majeure that the defendant can not control. But when the defendant
did not prove that the reason that the ship that the defendant employed to dock
and leave the port prematurely caused by natural disasters. In case it is force
majeure, it must be said that the cause is not preventable under Section 8,
when the defendant engaged in shipping business must know that the time of
navigation. And the dock may be inaccurate. If the defendant takes reasonable
care as an entrepreneur, it should not be liable to leave the port of departure
before delivery of goods as the plaintiff notified in advance. Therefore, the
defendant's defense is not enforceable.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3533/2559.
Before the auction about 3 to 4
days, the defendant was authorized to oversee the auction of land and buildings
of the plaintiff debtors. The rules of the plaintiff's enforcement of the
plaintiff's order to go before the auction. And the auction before the price
and opposition opponents. The regulations governing the execution of the
plaintiff's claim that the fighters must find a higher price or to buy
themselves. This auction is an important time for the defendant to take care
and prepare by checking the case and the way to go to the Lopburi
Administrative Office in advance. The defendant had enough time to prepare. The
defendant to the defendant was not guilty of the defendant who did not prepare
the protection before the can be done. It is not a force majeure, which will
cause the defendant to be released from liability for breach of contract. Defendant
is liable to the plaintiff
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1483/2559.
After the plaintiff's lawyers
both filed a petition for extension of the petition. And the Court of First
Instance has a permit. Only the plaintiff filed a petition to extend the
petition period. The Court of First Instance has the authorization to extend
the period of the petition to the plaintiff, the first one, including the
plaintiff's second, not because the right to petition is a matter of the
couple, but the plaintiff as a whole. Two new ones Filing petition for
extension of time, the Supreme Court then allowed the extension of the petition
to the plaintiff, the second case, the Court of First Instance will have an
order to extend the time to the plaintiff to the plaintiff. The second
plaintiff must refer to the force majeure plaintiff. 2 The applicant can not
file an extension of the petition before the end of the period in which the Court
of First Instance has ordered the extension of the period for the plaintiff to
the 27th day. March 2558, according to the petition. Plaintiffs' attorneys both
in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code, Article 23. However, according to
the complaint. The plaintiff's lawyer, the two new ones. The only claim that
the plaintiff's attorney's document is all that the plaintiff's attorney did
not contact. Need to copy the document in all new expressions. Can not make a
petition filed with the court of first instance. This refers to a special
circumstance that makes it impossible to file a petition within the prescribed
time limit. Even according to the claim will claim that such a cause is force
majeure. However, the plaintiff can not file a petition for the extension of
the petition before the deadline of March 27, 2015. Not only is the plaintiff's
case, the two new plaintiffs have just been appointed. From the plaintiff on
the date of filing the petition itself, so it can not conduct any proceedings.
The two plaintiffs before being appointed as plaintiff's attorney. When there
is no force majeure, the plaintiff can not file an extension of the petition
period before the end of the period. The Court of First Instance ordered the
extension of the petition to the plaintiff, the second is not the case with the
Civil Code Section 23 and the Court of First Instance has the second petition
of the plaintiff at a later time, the petition filed. Delayed filing petition.
I do not like the law. And it is considered a violation of the Code of Civil
Procedure Code 27. This problem is a law that concerns the public order. The
Supreme Court has the power to raise, correct and correct the error of the
Civil Code Section 247, Section 246 and Section 142 (5)
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1199/2559.
In this case, the Central
Bankruptcy Court has a custody order of the debtor 1 on June 8, 2010, before
the Central Bankruptcy Court will order the debtor to be the first defendant in
red case No. 7620/2010 on June 15. 2010 for 7 days, the Central Bankruptcy
Court in the case did not know that the first debtor has been in this case
before. Subsequently, when the Central Bankruptcy Court in the case mentioned
the order of protection of the debtor 1 is strictly prohibited to the official
receiver of the case. And the official receiver of the lawsuit has announced
the order of protection of the debtor, the first creditors to file a request
for debt settlement in the case on September 7, 2010, while not yet published
in the gazette, which was before the official receiver in the lawsuit. This has
just been posted on the advertisements, orders, security, debtors, debtors 1 in
the newspaper and in the government. On September 16, 2010 and October 19, 2010
respectively, it appeared that the official receiver of the case considered the
receipt of payment and scheduled to check the claim for debt settlement in the
said case on January 19, 2011 shows that the official receiver of the case. In
the same agency, it was never known that the Central Bankruptcy Court had the
order of the debtor The lack of this case in the first case, so that the
creditor filed a request for debt settlement in the case. It does not check
whether the debtor is liable in another case before or not to file a claim for
debt in another case. As a consequence of the operation of the receivership
agent and the proceedings of the Central Bankruptcy Court in such cases, the
creditor was wrongly mistaken to understand that the debtor 1 was not being
held in another case. In case of force majeure, the creditors can not apply for
debt settlement in this case within the period prescribed by law. It is
expedient to extend the period of submission of the request for payment to the
creditor until the creditor filed a request for payment and the plaintiff to
receive the repayment of the creditors to continue.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
15019/2558.
The liability of the
defendant 1 and 2, which is the cargo of the sea from the port. Even though it
appears to be a carriage by boat. In this case, the carriage of goods by sea in
respect of the duties and rights of the carrier and the consignee, not the
contractor, shall be subject to enforcement. Act of Carriage of Marine Affairs,
1991, Section 5, defendant 4 is a carrier of marine products in the country. Do
not need Act of Carriage of the sea, 1991, Section 4, paragraph two, by the
duties and rights of the defendant, 4, the force of the Civil and Commercial
Code on the carriage of such. When it appears that the first and second
defendants have been transported in the care to transport and issue a bill of
lading. The shipment was weighted at 1,964,583 metric tons and was labeled
"Shipped, in apparent good order and condition" and the message
"Clean on board" indicates that the defendant's first and second
cargoes were taken for transportation. The goods are exactly as stated in the
bill of lading. And the goods are in good condition. And the consignee delivers
the goods shipped with, has delivered the goods to the ship. That the consignee
procured. It is the case that the first and second defendants have delivered
the goods to the consignee. When the boat arrived at Koh Si Chang, the
investigator and assess the damage of goods that the plaintiff is the employer
also issued a report. Confirm that the weight of the shipment is equal to that
received for shipment from origin. It is presumed that the carrier has
delivered the goods, which have the quantity, weight and other details as
specified in the consignment note. If you do not issue a bill of lading. It is
presumed that the delivery of good condition, as the case may be, and the
plaintiff has a burden to prove that the goods delivered did not meet the
amount specified in the bill of lading. I do not think that the lack of goods.
From the incident occurred while the cargo was in the custody of the defendants
1 and 2, the defendants 1 and 2 are not liable for the lack of cargo or lost.
For the fourth defendant, the defendants 1 and 2 did not deliver the goods
transported to the defendant. 4, the number of shipments for transportation.
And the plaintiff itself can not prove that the defendant 4 has been shipped
goods for transportation how much. In addition to the invoice, the moisture
content of the product as well. The transport is also the fourth defendant, so
it is not liable for the lack of wheat shipments as well. The problem of sudden
rain people pull the canvas off the ship. As a result, the remainder of the
shipment is wetted. In this regard, the cargo was damaged during the custody of
the defendant 4, neither force majeure, because it can be anticipated and
prevented as a carrier of the cargo. Defendant 4 is responsible for the rice.
Whale transported this damage.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
13718/2558.
The Court of Appeal extended
the appeal period to the defendant by August 27, 2014. On August 28, 2014, the
defendant's lawyer filed a request for an extension of the appeal period of one
month, alleging that it had not received the words and expressions of the
request for interrogation. During the administrative process The case is a
petition for an extension of the appeal period. After the grace period expires
The defendant requested to expand only if there is force majeure under Section
23 of the Civil Code Section 23, Section 15, but the plea of the complaint is
a defect of the defendant's own lawyer who did not follow the documents that
have been taken. Early on, it is not a force majeure, so the defense attorney
has the right to file an extension of the appeal period at the end of the
appeal period. Court of First Instance has no authority to extend the appeal
period to the defendant. The Court of First Instance allowed the extension of
the appeal period to September 27, 2014. And when the defendant appealed on
September 26, 2014, the Court of First Instance has an order for the
defendant's appeal. Court of First Instance Appeal of Defendant The Court of
Appeal 3 considered the appeal of the defendant did not like it as well. And
not the plaintiff has the right to petition. The problem is legal issues
related to peace. There are no parties to raise a petition. The Supreme Court
has the power to raise the judgment under Section 195 paragraph two, Section
225.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
10808/2558.
The defendant filed a petition
dated April 22, 2556 to extend the period of filing the fee of the Supreme
Court on January 28, 2009 the court ordered the defendant to pay the fee to the
Court of First Instance within 30 days, claiming that the defendant. Can make
money And the name of the defendant.
Despite the time the defendant
paid the court fee, the Supreme Court has already passed the case for about 4
years, which is a process that does not like. And arising from the mistake of
the defendant itself is not a special circumstance or force majeure, the court
will extend the time limit under Section 23 of the Civil Code. Although the
Court of First Instance will have an extension of time to pay the fee to the
Supreme Court at the request of the defendant. And the defendant has to pay the
fee to pay the court within the extended period. It is not held that the
petition of the defendant is a lawful petition to be considered. This is the
law of public order. The Supreme Court has the power to lift the ruling even if
no party is raised by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 142 (5), and
Section 246 and 247.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1589/2558.
If the car is damaged by the
tsunami, hit the tree and flip side to the fragments of broken materials,
causing the car to be damaged, damaged and unusable hire. Under the contract to
the hire purchase contract, Article 5, paragraph two, if not a fault of the
lease. The lessee is liable for damages only to the extent that the owner has
spent the necessary and reasonable cause and according to Article 11 stipulates
that when the lease is terminated. The leasing agent is obliged to deliver the
car back. Even the plaintiff sued in the case of a default lease. But it is
enough to hold that the plaintiff sued the defendant liable for the
hire-purchase ends because of not being the fault of the lender. When the
rental car is damaged, it can not be repaired. But all cars have been lost, the
condition still remains. The plaintiff as the owner is entitled to trace the
property. Even cars that are leased from disaster affected by force majeure.
The leasing company is not responsible for delivery of the vehicle in good
condition. However, it must be returned according to the actual condition after
the disaster. Defendants as the heirs of the lease and the guarantor is liable
to return the property to the plaintiff. If not returned, it must be used
instead. The cost of car is 20,000 baht.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4317/2558.
The plaintiff did not
investigate the address of the defendant to submit a copy of the appeal to the
new defendant and to the court within a period of 1 month, leaving the time for
a period of up to 3 months, although the plaintiff claims that. Force Majeure
on Flood Disaster The plaintiff can not be processed within the court order.
But it appears that the Court of First Instance is still open. The plaintiff
can communicate with the court of first instance easily. No matter the phone Or
electronic communication, which is widely used. But the plaintiff did not. The
case is not force majeure. The plaintiff dismissed the appeal only the
defendant.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
14931/2557.
Defendant 1, the plaintiff rented
a safe to keep the property, with the defendants 2, 4 and 5 as employees are
responsible for maintaining the code and key room security. The second
defendant kept a copy of the code and how to open a stable room in the drawer.
The defendant's desk 4 kept the keys of the stable in a small safe, and the
defendant 5 stored another steady key in the drawer of the office table. The
defendant's first cause is that the villain dismantled and used to open the
room and steal the plaintiff's stored in a safe, so it must be considered. Each
of the defendants were negligent for 2, 4 and 5 in the storage room key card
and security as a result of plaintiffs directly to the scene of the burglary.
Not a force majeure that can not be prevented. The defendant's 2nd and 4th
defendants negligently in the employ of the defendant, the first defendant, the
employer must be jointly liable to defendants 2, 4 and 5 in accordance with
Section 425 of the one. with
Judgment of the Supreme Court
11751 - 11752/2557.
The request for extension of the
appeal period must be enforced. Establishment of the Intellectual Property and
International Trade Court and the Intellectual Property and International Trade
Intellectual Property Act, BE 2539 (1996), Section 37 provides that the court
shall have the power to consider, Necessity and Benefit of Justice Even the
plaintiff may request extension of time after the appeal deadline. It must be a
case of force majeure under Section 23 of the Civil Code, but it does not
appear that on April 26, 2012, the defendants of the five defendants filed an
extension of the appeal period alleging that a copy of the verdict was not
received. Intellectual property and international trade It also does not
appeal. The court ordered the extension of the appeal period for the five
defendants to June 29, 2012 and April 30, 2012, the date of appeal. It appears
from the officer's report that a copy of the verdict was issued to the
plaintiff in accordance with the statement of the plaintiff's verdict dated
March 30, 2012 as follows: It will appear that on May 2, 2012, the plaintiff
filed a request for extension of the filing period. Appeal The plaintiff's
attorney has the opportunity to receive a copy of the judgment on the date of appeal,
and before the plaintiff filed a petition to extend the appeal period of only
two days, which is a very short time for the plaintiff to appeal in this case.
Therefore, it is necessary for the sake of justice to extend the appeal period
to the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
10285/2557.
Section 8, the word "force
majeure" means that any event that will happen. It would be good. That's
why it can not be prevented. Even if the person who is experiencing or
experiencing a problem is properly cared for by the person in the situation and
situation. The provisions of the law that. To be considered a force majeure, it
must be the cause of the person's fault. If the victim is careful to take
reasonable care, then the bank, which has been assigned by the buyer to take
the money 550,000 to pay the Department of Justice and then embezzlement. To be
selfish by dishonesty. Buyers can not know that such an event. It is considered
that such a force majeure. The reason for failure to pay the debt on time is
not the fault of the buyer. And that is why buyers can not expect. The buyer of
the property claims to be force majeure to extend the remaining payment period.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
9530/2557.
The defendants filed an extension
of the appeal dated December 18, 2006, before the end of the appeals process.
However, the document is missing from the idiom. As a result, the Court of
First Instance can not order an extension before the end of the appeal period.
The defendants did not find the request for an extension of the appeal period,
dated December 18, 2006. The request for extension of the appeals process,
dated January 12, 2007, has been reviewed by the Court of First Instance. On
that day, the two defendants have not received the requested documents. There
is a reason to extend the appeal period to the request dated January 12, 2007,
offered after the deadline. The Court of First Instance allowed the extension
of the appeal period, according to the defendant's plea, so they liked it. The
Court of Appeal ruled against the defendants both because of that. Not getting
a copy of the verdict is not a force majeure, it is just a special
circumstance. Must file before the end of the appeal period. The Supreme Court
disagreed.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4134/2556.
According to the Civil Code Section
23, Section 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has extended the length of
time that the request for extended period when the special circumstances. A
request must be made before the end of that period. Except in case of force
majeure, it may be requested even after that period. For the defendant's case
The defendant failed to comply with the original court order to file an appeal
filed within the deadline. But appeals court orders. It is the case that the
defendant chose to exercise the right to appeal proceedings against the Court
of First Instance. And choose not to follow the court order to give the
defendant the opportunity to amend the appeal filed within the deadline. The
subsequent 4 rd Appeal Court ruled in favor of the Court of First Instance. The
defendant then extended the appeal period. Upon the expiration of the period of
time, the defendant filed the appeal to file a new appeal is not a force
majeure, the court will allow the extension of the appeal period to the
defendant. There are no objections to the defendant can not appeal within the
court of first instance. The defendant petitioned. When the defendant exercised
his right to appeal the court order, it would cause the time to file a lawsuit
by the defendant stumbled. The time elapsed between the appeals not deducted
from the period of time prescribed by the Court of First Instance is that the
length of the appeals under the Criminal Procedure Code The age of the Civil
and Commercial Code will stumble. There is no law, as the defendant claimed, so
that the Court of First Instance has an injunction to extend the appeal period
to the defendant is not in favor of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 23,
Section 15 of the case is a legal problem. About peace No party appeals. The
Fourth Appeal was raised by the SEC under Section 195 paragraph two.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
842 - 844/2010
To be considered a force majeure
under Section 8 must be caused by the absence of the person. And must not be
prevented, even if the victim is careful to take care of it. The defendant
allocated land and announced the sale of land plots and homes to the general
public as well as the fifteen consumers who did not prepare the investment
ready when the problem with investment. In the meantime, financial institutions
stopped lending in the meantime, causing the construction of residential houses
to be suspended. It is the defendant's fault, not prepared to prevent it. Can
be done It is not a force majeure that will cause the defendant to be released
from liability.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6235/2551.
Force majeure must be
unprotected. Even with proper care. The defendant claims that the wheel bearing
trailer on the right is causing the trailer to fall off. The truck was damaged
and the car was insured with the plaintiff in case it can not be considered a
force majeure because the car user must monitor the equipment that is composed
of the car, which is the device outside. And within Some devices are visually
detectable. Some pieces deteriorate according to usage conditions. All of them
must be supervised by the user, whether the inspection itself as a defendant to
control the vehicle. Or by any other person who has a duty, the defendant will
claim that the wheel bearing is an internal device. Not the inspection of the
first defendant, which is only the driver.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5564/2551.
The defendant is an investor in real
estate projects that are distributed to the public. It is expected to receive
high returns. It requires a high investment. Therefore, there must be a careful
planning in marketing and forecasting. To be able to take high risks. Despite
the economic crisis and the government's policy solution will have an impact.
General Business Including the defendant. But it is not a condition that the
defendant can not predict. Therefore, the defendant did not build the house can
not be heard because of force majeure. The defendant is a breach. Consumers
prefer to terminate the contract.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5419/2550.
The plaintiff filed a petition to
extend the appeal period after the expiration of the appeal period. It is the
case that the plaintiff did not file a petition to extend the appeal period
before the end of the appeal period. The plaintiff is required to file a case
with force majeure. The force majeure under Section 23 of the Civil Code
Section 23, Section 15, which means that the court can not have the order to
extend the period or the couple can not have such a request before the end of
the period. Time to do the law one. This is a circumstance beyond what can be
done before the end of the legal period.
If the plaintiff is sick and
can not help themselves. The plaintiff may be the plaintiff's wife, who is the
caretaker of the plaintiff in the illness as the plaintiff claimed in the
petition is to contact the plaintiff's attorney, who has the power to appeal to
extend the appeal period before the end of the appeal period or appeal within
the deadline. Appeal The period is one month from the date the Court of First
Instance read the verdict to the plaintiff. It is a long time that the
plaintiff will act as scheduled. The plea in the plaintiff's petition is not
force majeure. The plea to the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff was sued
and the plaintiff's lawyer in the province is not force majeure as well.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5205/2550.
No rain and no winds. At the junction
of the highway along the highway to the death of a motorcyclist along the
highway until the death of the dead not caused by force majeure. However, due
to the fault of the Department of Highways, the defendants did not cut down and
abandoned the defendant's officials to cut down the Chamchuri tree with hollows
to prevent damage to others. The violation of the defendant. Defendant is
liable to the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3077 - 3078/2550.
A request for enforcement must be made
within 10 years from the date of the judgment or order. For the time period set
forth in Civil Code Section 271, the court has the power to issue an order to
extend or shorten the period. By no means required. It can only be done when
there is a special circumstance. And the court has ordered before the end of
that period. Except in the case of force majeure in accordance with Section 23
of the Civil and Commercial Code, the Court of First Instance read the judgment
of the Supreme Court dated October 3, 2537. Both petitioners asked the Court of
First Instance to issue a regulation and send the regulations to the two
guarantors. According to the petition dated September 1, 2003, September 23,
2003 and November 19, 2003, it remained within 10 years, but the Court of First
Instance issued an order for the petition. Both petitioners appealed the court
order. The Court of First Instance ordered the appeal on January 8, 2004 and
read the judgment of the Court of Appeal 8 on July 13, 2005, which sentenced
the Court of First Instance to issue the regulations and sent the regulations
to the two guarantors under the guarantee agreement, dated August 2, 1990, The
next case, and it is a special circumstance. However, the enforcement time has
expired during the consideration of the 8th Circuit Court. The court of first
instance, which has the power to enforce the case, can not have an extension of
the enforcement period before the end of that period. So there is force
majeure. Subsequently, the two petitioners filed a statement requesting the
Court of First Instance to issue a regulation and send the regulations to the
two guarantors. The Court of First Instance has the authorization to do so. The
court has ordered the extension of the enforcement period. Otherwise,
enforcement can not continue. Both parties are entitled to execute the case
from the securities of the two guarantors under Section 274 of the Civil Code,
but the Court of First Instance to extend the enforcement period without time.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to complete.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
663/2550.
On June 3, 2005, the defendant
lodged a petition requesting an extension of the 30-day appeal period. The
Court of First Instance allowed the extension until June 17, 2005, which falls
on Friday. The defendant has a lawyer and the case is not complicated. The
appeal can be appealed to the court within the said period. But the defendant
has not appealed. The defendant's lawyer filed an appeal on June 20, 2005,
extending the appeal period for another three days, claiming that the
defendant's defense appealed the case to the Court of First Instance, but
during traffic congestion due to the construction of a new bridge. Have a car
collide. The defendant's lawyer traveled to the Court of First Instance at
almost 30 minutes to work and can not appeal immediately. This is why you can
protect and anticipate it. Case is not force majeure under Section 8 of the
defendant will extend the appeal period.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1480/2549.
The plaintiff's claim that the tax
invoice can not be presented because it refused to deliver the account and
documents returned to the plaintiff. And the plaintiff can not request a
replacement tax invoice from the taxpayer because the plaintiff does not know
what the tax invoice. It is not the case that the tax invoice is destroyed by
force majeure. It is not the case that the plaintiff can not apply for a tax
invoice because the tax invoice issuer can not issue a tax invoice because of
force majeure. Section 82/5 (1) of the Revenue Code and the Director-General of
the Revenue Department. Clause 2 of the VAT on the calculation of value added
tax under Section 82/3
Judgment of the Supreme Court
528/2549.
While the debtor filed a request for
business rehabilitation on June 10, 2003, the debtor received the rights and
benefits under Section 28 Exemption of import duty on machinery as approved by
the Board of Investment. Subsequently, when the Board of Investment issued an
order dated 25 December, the rights and benefits granted to the debtor were
revoked. Therefore, it can be considered that the debtor has never been
exempted or reduced tax and early taxable income, while keeping the price and
tax rates on the day of importation as a basis for calculating taxes in
accordance with. Section 55. Therefore, the value of tax debts payable by both
creditors to the debtors for repayment and repayment of debt repayment in the
business rehabilitation is a debt that occurred before the court date. The
order restores the business of the debtor that both creditors may apply for
repayment of debt restructuring. And when the bankruptcy court ordered the
rehabilitation of the debtors and set up the debtor as the planner. Both
creditors were not informed of the order to set up the planner by the official
receiver because no two creditor names appear on the creditor account.
According to the facts, it is considered that. It is a special circumstance and
there is force majeure that both creditors can not apply for repayment within
one month from the date the official adjudicator advertise the plan. Section
90/36 of the Bankruptcy Act, and both creditors have accelerated the process of
government service to file a request for debt repayment within the business
rehabilitation within a reasonable time after knowing that the debtor entered
the rehabilitation process. already Therefore, it is reasonable to accept the
repayment of both creditors to consider further.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
8659/2548.
Court of First Instance read the
sentence to the defendant on February 18, 2004, the defendant must appeal
within one month from the date of reading the judgment. According to the Code
of Criminal Procedure, Section 198, paragraph one, the counting of the starting
time shall be counted as the first day of the first day of the Civil and
Commercial Code, Section 193/3, paragraph two, starting from February 19, 2004,
Appeal Must be enforced by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/5 on
February 19, 2004 is not the beginning of the month, the period is not a month
can not be calculated on the calendar year. The deadline is March 18, 2004, the
day before the last day of the month, which is the date of the start of the period.
No February February, 11 days and March 2004 are 19 days to 30 days according
to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/6, paragraph one and paragraph
three. Because these provisions are counted as a month and a day. Or set to
month and month. Not a month.
The request for extension of
time for appeals in criminal cases under the Civil Procedure Code, Section 23,
in conjunction with the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 15, shall be made
before the end of the appeals process. The term "force majeure" under
Section 23 of the Civil Procedure Code means that the court can not issue an
order to extend the period of time or a party can not make such request before
the end of the period. The law can be any one. This is a circumstance beyond
what can be done before the end of the legal period.
The defendant claimed the
extension of time because the defendant was unable to check the evidence, the
plaintiffs have a lot and other evidence of the plaintiff. The defendant is a
Ramkhamhaeng University student and is currently undergoing field examinations
in Bangkok. The defendant's defense can not find the defendant and ask for
details in time for the appeal. With the defendant's lawyers have to prosecute
many more cases. When the case is not very expressive. The problem is not
complicated enough that the defendant can not inspect or make an appeal. Or ask
the facts from the defendant again. It is not considered a case of force
majeure to be requested after the due date of the appeal.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
8658/2548.
Defendant extends the appeal
period. Court Case Defendant has the right to appeal the order to the Court of
Appeal 7, according to P. 193 paragraph one, the Court of Appeal 7 not accept
the appeal of the defendant and judge the appeal. It's not like The Supreme
Court deems it expedient to diagnose the problem that there are grounds to
extend the time for the defendant to appeal or not to return the expression to
the Court of Appeal. 7.
The defendant's attorney
believes that the court hearing and the former lawyer allowed the extension of
the appeal period until January 20, 2004, and that the defendant's lawyer would
not be able to see the court order every day. Self It is the defect of the
defense attorney. The case is not force majeure. There is no reason to extend
the time to appeal to the defendant under Section 23 of the Civil Code Section
23, Section 15.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5730/2548.
Court of First Instance read the
verdict to the hearing on January 20, 2004, due to appeal on February 20, 2004
on the defendant's Appeal deadline to file an extension of the appeal period of
30 days. The Court of First Instance allowed the extension of the appeal period
to March 19, 2004. Later on March 22, 2004, which expired the appeal period.
The defendant filed a petition for appeal and filed an appeal claiming that the
offender was not guilty of pursuing a defendant. The Court of First Instance
has the order that, for the sake of justice, And the order of the defendant's appeal.
The case of the defendant is a case of petition for extension of the appeal
period after the appeal period has expired. The defendant will extend the
period only in case of force majeure under Section 23 of the Civil Code Section
23, Section 15, the defendant's defense does not follow the defendant's
negligence. The defendant It is not a force majeure that the defendant has the
right to file an extension of the appeal period at the end of the appeal
period. Court of First Instance has no authority to extend the appeal period to
the defendant. When the defendant appealed on 22 March 2004, the extension of
the appeal period was extended. The order of the court of first instance to the
defendant's appeal is not liked. The Court of Appeals 4 ruling of the
defendant's appeal and the Court of First Instance ordered the petition of the
defendant did not like it as well. The problem is legal issues related to
peace. There are no parties to raise a petition. The Supreme Court has the
power to raise the decision under the second paragraph of Section 195 paragraph
two of Section 225.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1927/2546.
Request for extending the appeal
period of the defendant, the first defendant to name the defendant and the
petitioner only. The petition is a defendant's first defendant, in particular,
to interpret that the defendant filed a petition to extend the defendant's time
to 2 to 5 with no finding that the defendant 2 to 5 misunderstood that. The
Court of First Instance allowed the extension of the appeal period means that
all the defendants. It is not force majeure. When the defendants 2 to 5 did not
file a petition to extend the appeal period before the end of the period
prescribed by the Court. And the claim is not force majeure, which will be
requested after the end of time to file an appeal under the Civil Procedure
Code Section 23, so there is no reason to extend the appeal period to the
defendant 2 to 5.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1678/2546.
The defendant bought the fabric from
the plaintiff. The defendant could not pay the debt to the plaintiff because
the buyer of the fabric of the defendant has a financial problem can not pay
the debt to the defendant. It is a business. The normal profit or loss of trade
is always occurring. May not be considered as force majeure, the defendant will
be released from liability under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 219,
paragraph one.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1374/2546.
Term of the payer is 1 year from
the date of check due under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1002, so the
check dated August 5, 2540 will be due on August 5, 1998 appears on the due
date. The plaintiff filed a petition to the Khon Kaen Provincial Court, where
the plaintiff is domiciled. The plaintiff proposes the clerk to bring the
lawsuit filed with the Udon Thani Provincial Court with the district court over
the case, but the money the lawyer's clerk is prepared not enough for the fee.
Clerk of the lawyer brought the complaint back to Khon Kaen and informed the
plaintiff at 16 o'clock, which is a force majeure that the plaintiff can not
return to file a lawsuit Udon Thani. The lawsuit was filed at the court of Khon
Kaen. Judge Khon Kaen Provincial Court ordered that. "The order is equal
to the acceptance that the plaintiff can not process the case in the lower
court of the case by force majeure under the Code of Civil Procedure, Section
10, although the Khon Kaen Provincial Court will. No orders to receive the
plaintiff. But the judge of the Khon Kaen Provincial Court ordered the petition
and sent to the Udon Thani Provincial Court to consider it. It is considered
that the Khon Kaen Provincial Court has accepted the plaintiff's complaint. The
Khon Kaen Provincial Court will send the indictment to the Udon Thani
Provincial Court for further consideration, it is a court procedure not related
to the couple. The Udon Thani Provincial Court will order the plaintiff's
complaint after the plaintiff's lawsuit. The plaintiff's case filed the case
within the age of the case is not a case.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1074/2546.
The problem that the defendant
delivered rice is not force majeure. The defendant claims the burden of proof
on this issue to the defendant.