Học tiếng Anh qua bài báo “chồng thua kiện vợ”
Dang Le Nguyen Vu decided to remove Deputy General Director of Ms. Thao. Thao petitioned the court to cancel the decision to remove, restore her title and was approved by the court. After that, Mr. Vu appealed, however, without being granted an appeal.
On 20/9, high-level People's Court in Ho Chi Minh City opened trial court dispute between the members of the Corporation Zhongyuan Group. The plaintiff is Ms. Le Hoang Diep Thao - former Vice General Director of Trung Nguyen Group. The defendant is Trung Nguyen group company and Mr. Dang Le Nguyen Vu - General Director, also her husband Thao.
However, at the hearing this morning, both Ms. Thao and Mr. Vu did not go to court to authorize attorneys to attend.
According to Ms. Thao's claim, the Trung Nguyen brand was founded in 1996 by Mr. Dang Le Nguyen Vu and her co-founder and owner.
On 8 May 2006, Thao was appointed as permanent vice president of the company. Since being appointed, Thao has been involved in managing and operating the company. From 2006 to 2014, the company's chartered capital has increased from 150 billion dong to 2.5 trillion dong.
Ms. Thao sued the court for the dismissal of Mr. Vu's resignation decision, restoring her title.
In April 2015, Mr. Dang Le Nguyen Vu suddenly issued a decision to remove Ms. Thao's permanent deputy general director, instructing her staff to do much to prevent Ms. Thao from exercising her right to run the company.
After a period of stress, Ms. Thao filed a lawsuit asking the court to cancel Mr. Vu's dismissal decision, restoring her title. Ms. Thao also asked Mr. Vu to stop the act of preventing himself from exercising the rights and duties of running the company as a member of the Board of Directors and standing Vice President. In addition, Ms. Thao also asked for some other content.
Earlier, the People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City first tried the case, accepted part of Thao's request, dismissed the decision to remove Deputy General Director of Ms. Thao and asked Mr. Dang Le Nguyen Vu Thao is prohibited to participate in management, management at this corporation.
Following this verdict, Dang Le Nguyen Vu appealed that Thao's permanent deputy general director role did not play an important role in the management of the company. Ms. Thao's denunciation was prevented by Mr. Vu to prevent the participation in operating and managing the company as a member of the Board is groundless, not in accordance with the law.
Trung Nguyen Group also appealed that Ms. Thao's petition was not a commercial dispute under the jurisdiction of the court but within the company.
At the hearing, the defendant's representative stated that there was no way he prevented Ms. Thao from participating in the operation or management of the company. By the meetings of the Board of Directors and General Meeting of Shareholders, Mrs. Thao was invited to participate directly. The defendant provided documents to the court, with her participation in the minutes, she has no record.
Attorney Truong Thi Hoa (defendant for the defendant) said: "The Chairman of the Board is not entitled to dismiss the position of deputy general director so Vu was wrong.Then, after the first instance, he Vu has decided to revoke the decision to remove this wrong.
According to Hoa lawyer, the object of the lawsuit is the decision to remove the dismissal is not due to be revoked and canceled, so the court proposed to stop this lawsuit. With the issue of Ms. Thao being banned, Hoa said that the defendant had filed many documents showing no such thing, so there is no basis to consider.
In response, lawyer Truong Trong Nghia (defendant for the plaintiff) said that Trung Nguyen Group Corporation is a family company, so it is not based on the distribution of interests like ordinary companies: "Between her Thao and Vu are not just capital partners but also partners. The company is formed from a small company and grows together, so the assets or shares of the company must be split. "
According to lawyers, before and now, Mrs. Thao is still the owner of the company but not touch any documents and books of the company. "The defendant does not prohibit, but only participate in sparse board meetings. Management company but not meeting the customer, signed a contract," - Lawyer Nghia said.
After the deliberation, the Panel does not accept the appeal of the defendant and the Corporation Trung Nguyen. As a result, the first instance verdict was upheld, accepting part of the plaintiff's claim, canceling Thao's decision to dismiss her title. In addition, Mr. Vu is not prohibited, hindering the management, management of Ms. Thao.
Như một cách luyện từ và câu đọc báo bằng tiếng Anh không chỉ kích thích khối óc người tư duy logic về các sự kiện thời sự, tin tức trong ngày, mà còn là phương pháp học tiếng Anh mang lại hiệu quả cao. Bạn đã thử nhiều cách học nhưng vẫn buồn ngủ và không vào đầu, hãy nhâm nhi một tách coffee và cầm một tờ báo tiếng Anh bạn đang thật sự rất nhân văn và thi vị. Chúc các bạn có một khoảng thời gian đọc báo hấp dẫn và lý thú!
0 nhận xét:
Đăng nhận xét