چکیده:
The basis of obligation arising from monetary commitments is fraught with complex regulations that our judicial system has faced throughout its existence, particularly after the Islamic Revolution. On one hand, it is related to the discussion of 'damages resulting from delay in payment,' which was declared potentially contrary to Sharia after the Islamic Revolution; on the other hand, it is related to the inflation rate, which our economy is struggling with. In the midst of this, courts must observe Sharia rulings, especially regarding usury (Riba), which is a red line of the Islamic system, and they must also be accountable to the public conscience when dealing with debtors who have no intention of breaching their commitments. Meanwhile, some side with the claimants, believing that a defaulting debtor should be held accountable for damages and breach of commitment to the claimant; conversely, others, by protecting debtors and using the religious prohibition of Riba as a tool, do not consider claimants entitled to receive damages arising from the breach of monetary commitments. In this regard, while the Supreme Court has the duty, based on its mission in the Constitution, to create a unified precedent in one of the country's most sensitive legal cases, it must also balance various scales, including Sharia rulings, law, justice, and fairness, so that it can satisfy both the jurisprudential, legal, and judicial society and wipe the dust of grief from the faces of debtors (even defaulters). Choosing such a method is a difficult and arduous task, which only the wisdom of a few, consultation with scholars in this field, and patience and endurance in interpretation and issuing rulings can bring this storm-tossed ship to a safe and calm shore. The difficult path taken in this uniformity ruling, in addition to observing the Sharia and legal standards of Islam, utilized scattered laws and took advantage of the golden opportunity of issuing a uniformity of precedent ruling to define the basis of unnecessary obligation, although judicial adjustment in its true sense was not accepted. This is so that by nurturing this approach in the judicial system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, justice and fairness will grow, and dynamism and perfection will be achieved.
خلاصه ماشینی:
And how should the colorful tricks that have been devised since ancient times [7] to commit usury be neutralized?" Part Four - Workflow of the case regarding the unification of precedent, row 99/62, and the decision of the General Board of the Supreme Court Clause One - Workflow of the Honorable Chief Justice of the Mazandaran Provincial Judiciary, announcing that from the branches the twenty-second and twenty-fifth branches of the Mazandaran Provincial Court of Appeals, regarding the validity of determining contractual liquidated damages in monetary obligations exceeding the announced inflation index under Article 522 of the Civil Procedure Code of General and Revolutionary Courts, have issued various rulings and requested the submission of the matter to the General Board of the Supreme Court, which The report of the matter is presented as follows: A) According to judgment number 0515-1396/6/19, Branch 14 of the Sari County General Civil Court, "regarding the lawsuit of the Mazandaran Province Livestock Support Joint Stock Company against 1.
The court, considering the aforementioned points, and since agreement on a penalty as liquidated damages for delay in debt payment is only provided within the framework of the regulations of the Interest-Free Banking Operations Law passed in 1363 with subsequent amendments for funds and facilities granted by banks, whereas in all lawsuits where the subject is debt and of the common type of money, the claim and payment of delay damages are carried out based on Article 522 of the Civil Procedure Code, and a condition of increase in monetary obligations is considered usury (Riba).
(
, 
, 
)
