|
بسم
الله الرحمن الرحيم باسم
صاحب السمو الشيخ محمد بن راشد آل مكتوم حاكم دبي محكمة
التمييز بالجلسة
العلنية المنعقدة يوم 27-02-2018 بمقر محكمة التمييز بدبي في
الطعــن رقــم 99 لسنة2018 طعن تجاري
طاعن: مطعون ضده:
الحكم
المطعون فيه: الصادر
بالطعن رقم 2017/1580 استئناف تجاري بتاريخ 29-11-2017 أصـدرت
الحكـم التـالي بعد الاطلاع علي الاوراق وتلاوة تقرير التلخيص الذي أعده وتلاه في الجلسه القاضي --------وبعد المداولة
وقال
في بيان ذلك بأن المطعون ضده تحصل منه على تمويل أسهم بصيغة المرابحة حيث باع
الطاعن لـه الأسهم آنفه الذكر مرابحة بمبلغ 2.871.801 درهماً ثم تخلف عن سداد
الأقساط المستحقة عليه وفقاً للعقد مما حدا بالطاعن إلى إقامة الدعوى بطلباته - ندبت محكمة أول درجة خبيراً مصرفياً وبعد مباشرته للمأمورية وتقديم تقريره حكمت المحكمة بتاريخ 27-7-2017 بإلزام المطعون ضده بأن يدفع للطاعن مبلغاً وقدره ----------------- درهما استأنف
الطاعن هذا الحكم بالاستئناف رقم 1580 /2017 واستأنفه المطعون ضده بالاستئناف
رقم 1665 /2017 تجاري وبعد ضمهما حكمت محكمة الاستئناف بتعديل الحكم
المستأنف وقضت مجدداً بالزام المطعون ضده بأن يدفع للطاعن الفائده التأخيريه
بواقع 9% سنوياً من تاريخ رفع الدعوى في 4-8-2016 على المبلغ المقضى به حتى تمام
السداد وتأييد الحكم المستأنف.
وحيث إن الطعن أقيم على ثلاثة أسباب ينعى بها المصرف الطاعن على الحكم بحيث يكون الإجمالي هو المبلغ المطالب به مما كان يتعين معه إجابة المصرف إلى طلباته بعد أن حلت جميع الأقساط لتصبح مستحقة الدفع في الحال لفشل المطعون ضده في دفع الأقساط في مواعيدها بالإضافة إلى أيه رسوم أو خسائر أو تعويض مما يكون معه الحكم معيباً بما يستوجب نقضه.
على سند مما انتهى إليه تقرير الخبير المنتدب في الدعوى من أن هناك عقد
مرابحة بين الطاعن والمطعون ضده ترخص بموجبه لهذا الأخير بالحصول على الأسهم محل
العقد بسعر مقداره --------- درهماً بربح ثابت 4.49% سنوياً على أن تكون مدة
التمويل 23 سنه بعدد أقساط مقسمه على 277 شهرا وسدد المطعون ضده جزءا من الرصيد
ثم امتنع عن سداد الباقي وترصد في ذمته مبلغاً مقداره----------- درهماً دون
أي منازعة منه فيه بعد أن حلت جميع الأقساط دفعه واحده لتخلفه عن السداد وأيده
في ذلك الحكم المطعون فيه على سند من أن تقرير الخبير قد التزم الواقع في الدعوى
والثابت من الأوراق ودفاع الطرفين - وهي أسباب سائغه ولها أصل ثابت بالأوراق ولا
مخالفه فيها للقانون من ثم يكون النعي على غير أساس.
|
|
In the
name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid AL Maktoum, Ruler of
Dubai
Court
of Cassation
In the public court held at the premises of Court of Cassation in
Dubai on the 27th of November 2018
Cassation
No 99 of the year 2018 Commercial cassation
--- ----------------------------
Appellant --------------------
------------Respondent
The contested judgment: the judgment rendered on the appeal by cassation No 2017/1580 commercial appeal that delivered on 29-11-2017
The Court rendered the following judgment
After
reviewing the documents, reading the summary report that prepared and read
during the hearing session by judge ----------------and after deliberation.
Whereas
the appeal by cassation has fulfilled its formal conditions. And, Whereas,
the facts of the case can be summarized as follows:
The
Appellant said that the Respondent obtained shares financing from him, in a
form of Murabaha and the Appellant sold for him the above-mentioned shares at
the amount of ----------- by way of Murabaha. However, the Respondent defaulted to pay the
instalments due as per the contract concluded between them, which prompted
the Appellant to file the present lawsuit.
The Court of First Instance assigned a banking expert in
the dispute. Having the expert
exercised his task, and submitting his report; The
Court obliged the Respondent on 27th June 2018 to pay the amount of
AED --------------- to the Appellant. however. The
Appellant appealed such judgment by appeal No 1580 /2017, at the same
time, the Respondent appealed the same judgment by
the appeal No 1665/2017 commercial. The Court of Cassation, after combining both appeals,
obliged the respondent again, to pay the annual delay interest of 9 % as from
the date of filing the lawsuit on 4th
of September 2016, for the adjudicated amount of money, until the full
payment. The court also upheld the appealed judgment.
The bank, by virtue of the statement of appeal deposited with the Cases Department on the 24 of January 2018, appealed the present judgment for cassation and requested that the above-mentioned judgment be quashed.
And, Whereas the court presented the appeal by cassation at the
Council Chamber, and whereas the court was of the view that the appeal is
based on reasonable grounds, it scheduled a hearing session to consider
thereof in the pleading.
Whereas the objection is based on three grounds whereby the
Appellant bank claims that; the contested judgment vitiated by lack of causation
and imperfection of reasoning, since it established its ruling on groundless
facts, without examination to the elements of the claim and its evidence, which
contradicts with the proof of the electronic records of the Appellant that
provide that the indebtedness is the amount claimed of AED -------- and it is evident from the funding request
submitted by the Respondent that the value of funding is the amount of
AED ------- at the annual profit of 4 % for 23 years at a total profit of AED --------------,
therefore said total shall be the amount claimed. This therefore requires,
all bank's requests to be responded to in
particular after all instalments
become payable, since the Respondent defaulted to pay thereof in due time in
addition to any other fees, losses or compensation, therefore the judgment is
vitiated by a legal error that necessitates its reversal.
Whereas the objection is refutable since it established on the ruling of this court that the Court of Merits has the exclusive authority
to understand the facts of the case, consider the evidence and the documents
submitted therein, estimate the expert’s report when it satisfied
with the grounds of such report, and the court at its own discretion was of
the view that the expert’s report examined all disputed points between both
litigants based on reasonable grounds having proof in the documents so long
as its judgment is based on reasonable grounds having proof in the documents
that is sufficient whenever it deems fit, and the court is not obliged to
reply to all the points that the opponent raised in its defence, as long as it found in the
expert’s report what satisfies it.
- Whereas the judgment of the court of the First Instance
has concluded that the Respondent shall be obliged to pay for the Appellant
bank the sum of AED ------------based on what concluded in the expert’s
report that states that there is an agreement of Murabaha between both
litigants, and by virtue of the said agreement, the Respondent has been
authorized to obtain said shares the subject of the agreement at the price of
AED ------- with fixed profit estimated at 4.49 per cent,
and the agreement stated that the funding’s period shall be 23 years with
27 instalments divided into 277 months. And, the respondent paid a portion
of the balance then it defaulted to pay the rest of the amount of money,
therefore the amount of AED ---------- became payable for the Appellant, in
particular, all instalments became payable at one time because the
Respondent failed to pay thereof in due time. Accordingly, The contested judgment upheld this judgment
on the ground that the expert’s report has complied with the fact of the
case, the proof of the documents and the defence of both litigants- and it is
a reasonable grounds having proof in the documents and does not violate the
law, therefore the objection is invalid. For the above reasons the court shall dismiss the appeal, Therefore, The court dismissed the appeal and obliged the Appellant to
pay the charges. 1.
|
الاثنين، 2 أبريل 2018
قضية إستئناف مترجمة.
الاشتراك في:
تعليقات الرسالة (Atom)
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق