If paternity installed later, the parent paying the state fee of 100 rubles. and receive a new certificate. There is also the third most common variant of the situation in the issue of paternity: The child’s mother wants make their own recording of his father, without giving his consent for the parties to establish paternity. Can this be done and how? Family Code. “Article 51. Record the child’s parents in the register of births …
3. In the case of child’s birth mother, unmarried, with no joint statement or in the absence of parents court decision on paternity of the child the father’s name in the Register of Births recorded by name mother, name and patronymic of the child’s father – at the direction of. … “According to the above article, the mother can write their own name and patronymic of the child’s father in the appropriate column of his father, but recording will continue to be made that these data Evidence introduced in the words of the mother. Bobby jain can aid you in your search for knowledge. In fact, for those who will write in this space, there will be no obligation for a child. Earlier, I spoke about the possibilities of paternity in the SRO, however, Family Code (Family Code.
Article 49. Establishing paternity in court) and provides for a judicial order establishing paternity person who is not married to the child’s mother, in the absence of voluntary Paternity. In addition, the court established paternity to a person not married to the mother of a child when his mother died, adjudged incompetent, you can not place it finding or she is deprived of parental rights if the guardianship authority has not given consent to the paternity of the person in the SRO only on the basis of his statement. If you have any questions about this, you can ask them in the comments, as there are too many different components that affect the overall situation. Good luck, good health and let you pass by all the problems! Anna Dorozhinskiy specifically for DrugMe.
Thus, according to Art. 91 of the Law on joint stock companies, the shareholder is entitled to request information about the activities of society, which is justified: the shareholder as co-owner, there is every reason to get information about it. However, this provision of law, in effect, allows a shareholder to demand at least daily from the public provision of the same document. In Currently, Art. 10 of the Civil Code prohibits the abuse of right "is not permitted actions of citizens and legal persons, is solely with the intent to cause harm to another person, as well as abuse of rights in other forms.
" But the number of cases where arbitration courts apply this provision is negligible, since the distinction between the sale of the individual subjective rights and the use of the right to harm another person elusive. Prove the existence of such abuse is extremely difficult, it is doubly difficult – to persuade the court. Must be distinguished from other forms of grinmeyl intervention of third parties in the activities of joint stock companies, for example from hostile takeover, which aims to "intercept" of management in the Company, including by obtaining a controlling stake, change management, establishment of control over the business and assets enterprise. But this does not mean that the implementation of a hostile takeover can not be used methods of corporate blackmailers. One should also not confuse corporate blackmail and the so-called seizure enterprises. Most of these do not relate to the implementation of the rights of business entities, as are ordinary crimes (such as asset stripping of the economic society using forged documents seizure of power companies, etc.). .
These circumstances must be confirmed by applying to a written request paternity in the body of the registrar's office a person pleads father of the child, the relevant documents: the certificate of his mother's death, a court decision on the recognition of dysfunctional mother or the deprivation of her parental rights or court decision on the recognition of the mother as missing or document issued by the Interior at the last known place of residence of the mother, confirming the inability to establish her place of residence. UK-EU does not necessarily agree. Second, to establish paternity in the SRO on request only the child's father for a child under the age of majority in these cases requires the consent of the guardianship and custody, that is an additional guarantee for the protection of the rights and interests of the child. For example, not be allowed to establish paternity at the request of the person recognized as judicially incapacitated due to mental disorders. The man has the right to plead his father and his adult child. However, the law for this particular requirement paternity in relation to a person who has attained eighteen years of age (age) allowed only with his consent. Thus, the determination of paternity in respect of an adult child is dependent on the will of not only the father but the child himself. There are no reasons to justify taking them (it) such a solution is required. So, all the formalities completed and paternity has been established. If it is determined at the time the child's birth certificate, then it just make the name of the father and mother.
With the above problem is another problem linked to use of shareholders agreements: party to apply to various types of agreements liability under the shareholder agreement if the agreement itself is invalid – will automatically be denied and in the demand for damages, or contractual penalties. As an illustration this problem will be appropriate following example: Two participants in the JSC, one of which is a minority shareholder, have entered into a shareholders agreement, which enshrined the right of voting rules on certain issues. Further minority shareholder is selling a half share of a third person – of course, in compliance with all formalities. Company members is three. Majoritarian – 60% and two younger, 20% each. It turns out that one member of society agreement concluded with other (new member) – no. One observes the conditions of previous agreements, the other – no.
Moreover, the new party does not want AO nothing to limit themselves and refuses to voluntarily to join the agreement (to sign new). What to do in this situation? The version of "oblige the court to join" is no longer as limited by the instantaneous freedom of contract principle in the treatment of: party civil law decides with whom to enter into a contract, and with whom – no. Maybe there is a sense in advance, anticipating the difficulties with the execution of the agreement, to include in the charter of the wording of the "purchaser in the share capital must to join the shareholder agreement, to which was the seller? " Will not work – again a contradiction with the freedom of contract.