|
بسم
الله الرحمن الرحيم باسم صاحب السمو الشيخ محمد بن راشد آل مكتوم
حاكم دبي محاكم دبي الابتدائية بالجلسة العلنية المنعقدة يوم 28-02-2018 بمقر
محاكم دبي الابتدائية بدبي في الدعـوى رقــم 60 لسنة2018 مدني كلي
:مدعى--------------------- مدعى عليه:---------------------
أصـدرت المحكمة الحكـم
التـالي
بعد سماع المرافعة والاطلاع على الأوراق، وبعد
المداولة: . بإلغاء
الحكم الابتدائي الذي تم الحجز التحفظي بموجبه ، وإلــــــغاء الأمر الصادر
بتوقيع الحجز التحفظي رقم 2 / 2018 مع حفظ الملف وأرفق تأييدا لدفاعه حافظـــة
مستندات حوت صورة عن حكم الاستئناف السالف بيانه ومستند حفظ ملف الحجز التحفظي رقم 2 / 2018 حجز تحفظي
مدني ، ونسخة من الرسائل الصادرة عن محكمة دبي الابتدائية إلى الجهات
الحاجزة لفك الحجز .
وحيث انه من المقرر أن النص في المادتين 254 / 2 ، 258 / 2 من قانون الإجراءات
المدنية يدل على أنه يتعين على القاضي المستعجل أن يستجيب الى طلب الدائن بتوقيع
الحجز على أموال المدين تحت يده أو تحت يد الغير متى كان الدائن يستند في طلبه
الى حكم صادر لصالحه ضد مدينه المحجوز عليه ولو كان حكماً ابتدائياً غير واجب
النفاذ ، طالما أن الدين المحجوز من أجله معين المقدار بموجب هذا الحكم ولو كان
محل نزاع من جانب المدين أمام المحكمة الابتدائية ، وذلك دون حاجه للتقيد
بالشروط الواردة في المادة 252 من ذات القانون بشأن خشيه الدائن من فقدان حقه
بأن لم يكن للمدين إقامه مستقرة في الدولة او خشية فراره أو تهريب أمواله ، إذ
لا مجال لإعمال هذه الشروط طالما أن القانون قد اوجب على القاضي أن يأمر بتوقيع
الحجز التحفظي بناء على طلب الدائن متى كان بيده حكم ولو كان غير واجب النفاذ إذ
ليس للقاضي سلطة تقديريه في هذه الحالة (الطعن رقم 288 لسنة 2005 مدني جلسـة
19-3-2006 والطعن رقم 242 لسنة 2006 تجاري) .
|
|
In the name of Allah, the most
gracious, the most merciful in the name of His Highness
Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum The First Instance Court in
Dubai
In the public court held at
the premises of Dubai First Instance Court on the 28th November 2018
In the civil plenary No. 60
of the year 2018 --------------------- Plaintiff --------------------- Defendant
.The court rendered the following
judgment
Having heard of the oral pleadings,
reviewed the documents
and after deliberation: the judge of provisional
matters, based on the judgment
referred to above, imposed the precautionary attachment on the Defendant’s bank accounts,
its immovable and movable property and all its assets. Accordingly,
the Plaintiff filed the present case
requesting the validly of the judgment based on the provisions of the
articles 255/261 of Civil Procedures Law
the Plaintiff, In support to his
claim, submitted a folder
containing a copy of the judgment rendered in the case No. 113 of the year 2017 plenary civil ,
along with a copy of precautionary attachment order.
Whereas the two parties of
litigation appeared before the Department of Cases, and the representative of
the Defendant submitted a memorandum and requested the court at the end the
his memorandum, to dismiss the case for being an irrelevant case as a result of ruling the appeal
judgment No. 1412, 1447 / 20 17 that cancelled
the judgment of the
Court of First Instance which the precautionary attachment rendered based on
it, he also requested the court to cancel the precautionary attachment order
no 2 /
2018, with suspending
the file of the case. The
representative of the Defendant, In support to his claim attached a folder
contained a copy of the appeal judgment mentioned above, and document of
discontinuing the precautionary attachment No. 2/2018 civil provisional
attachment, and a copy of the messages issued by Dubai First Instance Court
for the concerned entities to release of the property.
Whereas the case was deliberated at the hearings of the
court after referring thereof from the Department of Cases, as the court
scheduled a hearing to consider thereto on 26-2-2018. Wherein both litigants
appeared before the court through their attorneys that requested the court to
render its judgment in the case, therefore
the court decided to render its judgment in today’s hearing, Whereas the
provision of the article 254/2, 258/2 of Civil Procedure Code indicated to
the magistrate of summary justice, based on the request of the creditor,
shall impose the precautionary attachment on the available property of
the debtor or the available property relating to the debtor with the third
party if the creditor has obtained a judgment in favor of him against
the provisioned even if it was an unenforceable first instance judgment as long as the garnisheed
is a specific value in accordance with this provision even if the subject matter
to dispute relating to the debtor is brought before first instance court,
without being restricted to the conditions described in article No. 252
of the same law that relating to the creditor's fear of losing his right if
the debtor has not a stable residence in the state, or if he feared that the
debtor flee or snuggle the money. Therefore, there is no way for
applying these conditions as long as
the law requires the judge to impose the precautionary attachment based on
the creditor's request whenever it is possible to him, even though it is unenforceable.
As the judge has no discretionary power in this case. (appeal by cassation
No. 288 of 2005 civil at the hearing of 19-3-2006, and appeal by cassation
No. 242 of 2006 commercial) the value of debt
be specified under such judgment even if this judgment is disputed before For the above
reasons, whereas it is well-established for the court from reviewing the
papers and the documents of the case,
and after reviewing the file relating to the precautionary attachment No 2 of
the year 2018 civil precautionary attachment that it is electronically
archived. And, whereas the judge of provisional matters on
7-1-2018 rendered a judgment to impose the precautionary attachment
subject matter to this dispute. But on
4-2-2018 a decision issued by the judge of provisional matters to cancel all
precautionary attachments based on the cancellation of the first instance
judgment that rendered the precautionary attachment. Therefore, the request to
validate and preserve the precautionary attachment established in the present
case is irrelevant, and as a result,
the court dismissed the case as per the following wording of the judgment. With regard to
the charges and attorney’s fees, the court in accordance with the provisions
of the articles 133, 135 of Code of Civil Procedures, obliged the Plaintiff
to pay thereof For the above
reasons, The court, in the
presence of the Plaintiff, dismissed the case and obliged the Plaintiff to
pay the fees, charges and thousand dirhams for attorney’s fees.
|
الاثنين، 2 أبريل 2018
قضية مترجمة من العربية الى الإنجليزيه.
الاشتراك في:
تعليقات الرسالة (Atom)
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق