Today, the court of first instance postponed the examination of the claim of Hasmik Poghosyan regarding the cancellation of the building (the “Old Erivan” restaurant complex) at 2 North Avenue, mortgaged to “Unibank” within the framework of the loan agreement. The contract was signed between “Unibank” and Manvel Ter-Arakelyan.

Judge Liza Grigoryan made that decision after Ani Antonyan, representing the interests of Manvel Ter-Arakelyan, demanded that the judge recuse himself. This is in response to the fact that Judge Grigoryan rejected Antonyan’s petition to suspend the given case, because it is pending the judgment of another case being examined at the first instance. And more specifically, the case presided over by Judge Sukoyan at the first instance should determine whether Hasmik Poghosyan is the owner of 50 percent of the property belonging to Manvel Ter-Arakelyan (VERELQ wrote earlier that Hasmik Poghosyan is Ter-Arakelyan’s ex-wife. The property is acquired during a joint marriage – ed.).

According to Ani Antonyan, until there is a decision of the court, the lawsuit currently under consideration cannot be processed, because in the said lawsuit Ms. Poghosyan presents herself as a co-owner and, based on those grounds, demands to cancel the pledge agreement. Meanwhile, there is no relevant court ruling that Poghosyan is really the co-owner of Manvel Ter-Arakelyan’s property.

Tigran Muradyan, the representative of Hasmik Poghosyan’s interests, agreed that these two cases are interconnected. Only “Unibank” representative Nurijan Kirakosyan objected to their arguments. However, the arguments of Antonyan and Muradyan did not seem convincing to Judge Grigoryan, according to whom the two mentioned cases have nothing to do with each other. Accordingly, he rejected Antonyan’s motion to stay the lawsuit. This was the basis for Antonyan to demand the judge’s resignation. 

He also asked Judge Grigoryan whether he has a loan at “Unibank”. The answer was negative.

Ultimately, the judge agreed to allow until January 18 to consider the motion to dismiss. 

During the session, another motion was also examined to involve the “Old Erivan” holding as a third party in the mentioned case, but the lawyer of Hasmik Poghosyan, Tigran Muradyan, asked to postpone the consideration of that motion, because he could not find any documents, whether the said holding exists or is liquidated. Manvel Ter-Arakelyan’s defense attorney Antonyan also agreed with this claim, Nurijan Kirakosyan was the one who submitted the objection. However, Judge Grigoryan confronted Tigran Muradyan in this matter, considering that, indeed, without relevant documents, the “Old Erivan” holding cannot be involved as a third party: giving the parties time to obtain said documents.

After the session, Nurijan Kirakosyan responded to the journalists’ question whether “Unibank” recognizes Hasmik Poghosyan as a co-owner of the “Old Erivan” holding. “No”. And he refused to answer other questions, according to tradition.