A Company and B Company have filed a lawsuit against Financial and Credit Institution C, titled ‘Declaration of Invalidity of the Penalty Clause in the Civil Partnership Contract and Annulment of the Civil Partnership Contract.
With the following explanation:
Firstly, at the time of drafting the civil partnership contract, the aforementioned institution lacked authorization from the Central Bank.
Secondly, the civil partnership was neither formed nor realized in accordance with the governing laws and regulations of partnership contracts.
Thirdly, at the time of drafting the mortgage contract, no debt existed for the mortgage contract to be valid.
The presiding judge, after obtaining expert opinions, receiving a response from the Central Bank, and thoroughly explaining the following issues, proceeds to issue a ruling:
1. C Institution (the current financial and credit institution) lacked legal capacity at the time of drafting the contracts, adhesion agreement, and mortgage documents because it did not have a license to engage in banking operations at that time.
2. Government regulations, Central Bank bylaws, and the resolutions of the Money and Credit Council regarding the establishment of banks and the granting of banking facilities are considered mandatory rules due to their direct connection with the economic public order of society, and no agreement can violate these mandatory rules.
3. The conditions for forming a civil partnership by drafting a civil partnership contract are mandatory rules, and it is not possible to agree or act contrary to them. In the absence of compliance with these mandatory regulations, the civil partnership will not be formed or realized.
4. The adhesion agreement was drafted simultaneously with the civil partnership contract, and according to it, the customer was identified as a debtor of Institution C, whereas the customer had been a partner from the beginning, not a debtor. Additionally, the mortgage contract was also drafted before the existence of any debt.
5. The true intent of the parties was illegal and was essentially a usurious loan.
Summary of the Ruling
The adjudicating authority, on 2018/12/19, after detailing the aforementioned matters and aligning the actions taken with the relevant laws, regulations, and religious decrees, found the plaintiff’s claims to be valid and substantiated and issued the following ruling:
1. Judgment declaring the invalidity of the penalty clause in Articles 10 and 19 of the civil partnership contracts.
2. Judgment declaring the invalidity of the penalty clause in Articles 14 and 20 of the civil partnership contract.
3. Judgment declaring the invalidity of the penalty clause in Article 13 of the adhesion agreements of the aforementioned contracts.
4. Judgment declaring the invalidity of the mortgage contract drafted at the notary public office.
5. Condemnation of Financial and Credit Institution C to pay the litigation costs to the plaintiffs.
