تحلیل حقوقی اقرار، انکار و سوگند مدیر عامل یا مدیر تصفیۀ ورشکستگی از سوی شرکت

از مشکلات اساسی دعاوی علیه اشخاص حقوقی از جمله شرکت‌ها، اقرار، انکار یا سوگند خوردن آنهاست. در نخستین نگاه به‌نظر می‌رسد که آنها نمی‌توانند سوگند بخورند، اقرار کرده یا انکار کنند، ولی دقت بیشتر خلاف آن‌ را نشان می‌دهد. در دعاوی له و علیه یک شرکت قانون آیین دادرسی مدنی مدیر عامل ‌‌و قانون تجارت مدیر ‌تصفیه ‌‌را صاحب دعوا دانسته است. قانونگذار برای ‌نمایندگان قراردادی چنین جایگاهی در نظر نگرفته است. در همۀ این ‌موارد طرف مقابل دعوا نیازمند اقرار یا سوگند‌ خوردن مدیر عامل بوده و شرکت نیازمند انکار یا تردید کردن در ادعاهای طرف مقابل خواهد بود. نوشته‌های مدیر عامل در دفاتر تجارتی اقرار کتبی شرکت حساب می‌شود، پس به‌نظر می‌رسد اقرار، انکار و سوگند شرکت نیز متصور است و می‌توان با رعایت شرایط قانونی بسته به ‌مورد اقرار یا انکار مدیر عامل یا مدیر تصفیه‌‌ را اقرار یا انکار شرکت محسوب کرد، مدیر عامل یا مدیر ‌تصفیه‌‌ را به‌جای شرکت سوگند داد. آنها می‌توانند در مقابل سوگند داده ‌شدن قبول سوگند کنند، سوگند بخورند، اگرچه بعید است بتوانند سوگند‌‌ را رد کنند. در این‌ باره، دلایلی نشان می‌دهد مانند ورشکستۀ حقیقی، مدیر عامل هم با وجود ورشکستگی شرکت، سمت خود‌‌ را به‌طور کامل از‌ دست نمی‌دهد و همچنان می‌تواند اقداماتی را از سوی شرکت ورشکسته انجام دهد. همۀ این ‌موارد، علاوه‌بر شرکت‌ها، دربارۀ همۀ انواع اشخاص حقوقی قابل ‌اعمال خواهند بود.

legal analysis of confession, denial, and oath by the executive manager or the liquidator of bankruptcy on behalf of the company

one of the main problems in suing legal entities, including companies, is their confession, denial or oath. at first sight, it seems they cannot take oath, confess, or deny, but a closer look shows the opposite. in the lawsuits for or against the company, the civil procedure code and the commerce act consider the executive manager and the liquidator as the claimant, respectively. the legislature does not consider such a position for contractual representatives. in all these cases, the other party in the lawsuit requires confession or an oath of the executive manager, and the company will need to deny or doubt the other party’s claims. the executive manager’s writings in the commercial notebooks are counted as the company’s written confession. therefore, it seems that the company’s confession, denial, and oath are also imaginable, and it is on merits possible to deem the confession or denial of the executive manager or liquidator of the company as confession or denial of the company and require the executive manager or liquidator to take oath on behalf of the company. they can accept to take the oath, although they are unlikely to be able to refuse to take the oath. in this regard, some reasons are presented, such as a natural bankrupt person; in this case, the executive manager, despite the company’s bankruptcy, has not lost his standing completely and still can accomplish some work on behalf of the bankrupt company. all of these, in addition to companies, will apply to all types of legal entities. this descriptive-analytical research will show that the legislator considers contractual representatives the parties’ lawyers while legal representatives are the parties to the case. in this regard, the executive manager is not a contractual but a legal representative. the reason is that he is not determined by his principle (company) but according to the rules laid down in the law.in analyzing the subject of this article, it is necessary to discuss assuming the impossibility of confession, denial, or oath of a legal person; considering the executive manager and the liquidator as the claimant; differences between the places of legal and contractual representatives; means of confession, denial, or oath of the executive manager or liquidator on behalf of the company; and the possibility of bankrupt businessman’s intervention in commercial lawsuits.the precedence of assuming the legal status of contractual and legal representatives as the same by most practitioners and analysts has led to misconceptions. but as the hypothesis of this article, the legislator clearly differentiated between the two groups, granted them different rights and powers, and thus made it possible for a legal person to confess, deny, or take an oath.the research showed that contrary to what is known, legal entities can confess, deny, or take an oath, and each of these cases is done by their legal representative (executive manager) or deputy (liquidator or head of the bankruptcy liquidation department). since legal persons do not enjoy the capacity to exercise rights and discharge obligations, the legislator somehow principally considers the legal person and his legal representative the same. the legal representative is also considered the claimant, and his position differs from the contractual representative’s (lawyer) position.