|
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 Sheikh Mohammed bin
Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai Dubai Courts of First Instance In the public hearing held on 28/02/2018 at the
premises of the Dubai Courts of First Instance In Case No. 60 of 2018 – Civil Plenary Plaintiff: --------------------- Defendant: --------------------- The Court has rendered the following Judgment After hearing the pleadings, reviewing the
documents, and deliberating: Whereas the facts of the case can be summarized as follows: The
Plaintiff filed the present case against the Defendant by virtue of a statement
of claim submitted to the Case Management Office on 01/02/2018, in which he
ultimately requested the Court to confirm his right and the validity of
Precautionary Attachment No. 2 of 2018 issued on 07/01/2018, and the precautionary
attachment issued on 18/07/2016 – Civil, as detailed in the requests, along
with obligating the Defendant to pay the fees, .expenses, and attorney’s fees. The claim was based on the fact that the
Plaintiff had previously obtained a judgment in Case No. 113 of 2017 – Civil
Plenary, obligating the Defendant to pay him AED 526,116.50 along with interest
at a rate of 9% annually from the date of claim until full settlement. Based on
that judgment, the Judge of Urgent Matters issued an order for the precautionary
attachment mentioned above over the Defendant’s bank accounts, immovable and
movable assets, and all its properties. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brought the
present action requesting confirmation of the attachment based on Articles 255
and 261 of the Civil Procedure Law. In support of his claim, he submitted a
bundle of documents including a copy of the judgment rendered in Case No. 113
of 2017 – Civil Plenary and a copy of the precautionary attachment order. Whereas the parties appeared before the Case Management Office, and
the Defendant’s representative submitted a memorandum requesting the dismissal
of the case for lack of subject matter, as a result of the appeal judgments No.
1412 and 1447 of 2017, which overturned the primary judgment upon which the
precautionary attachment was based, and canceled Attachment Order No. 2/2018.
He also requested closure of the file. In support of his defense, he submitted
a bundle of documents including a copy of the aforementioned appeal judgment, a
document evidencing the closure of Attachment File No. 2/2018 – Civil
Precautionary Attachment, and copies of letters issued by the Dubai Court of
First Instance to the concerned authorities to lift the attachment. Whereas the case was deliberated in hearings after being referred
from the Case Management Office, and a session was scheduled for hearing on
26/02/2018, in which both parties appeared through their legal representatives
and requested the Court to render its judgment, the Court then reserved the
case for judgment at today's hearing. Whereas Article 254(2) and Article 258(2) of the Civil Procedure Law
indicate that the Judge of Summary Proceedings must grant a creditor's request
to impose a precautionary attachment over the debtor’s assets or assets held by
third parties, provided the creditor holds a judgment in his favor against the
debtor, even if it is a non-final and unenforceable judgment, as long as the
debt amount is determined by such judgment—even if it is under dispute before
the Court of First Instance. In such cases, there is no need to adhere to the
conditions set out in Article 252 of the same law regarding the creditor’s fear
of losing his right due to the debtor lacking a stable residence in the State,
or fears of the debtor fleeing or concealing assets. These conditions do not
apply because the law obliges the judge to issue the precautionary attachment
upon the creditor’s request as long as a judgment is available—even if
unenforceable—without the judge having any discretionary authority in this
regard (Cassation No. 288 of 2005 – Civil, session dated 19/03/2006, and
Cassation No. 242 of 2006 – Commercial). Whereas from the documents and the electronically archived file of
Precautionary Attachment No. 2 of 2018 – Civil Precautionary Attachment, it is
established that the Judge of Urgent Matters issued, on 07/01/2018, an order to
impose the attachment subject of the present case. However, on 04/02/2018, the
same judge issued a decision lifting all attachments and closing the file,
based on the cancellation of the primary judgment upon which the attachment was
based. Accordingly, the request for confirmation and continuation of the
attachment in the present case is without basis, since the attachment has already
been lifted, and the Court therefore rules the case inadmissible as stated in
the dispositive part of this judgment. As to the legal costs and attorney’s fees, the Court obligates the Plaintiff to pay them
in accordance with Articles 133 and 135 of the Civil Procedure Law. Therefore, the Court ruled as follows: The Court, in the presence of the Plaintiff, ruled the case inadmissible and obligated the Plaintiff to pay the fees, expenses, and an amount of AED 1,000 as attorney’s fees
|
الاثنين، 2 أبريل 2018
قضية مترجمة من العربية الى الإنجليزيه.
الاشتراك في:
تعليقات الرسالة (Atom)
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق