The appointment of a receiver is not contingent on the existence of an early failed attempt at the Execution Office in the process of implementing the judgment. The courts are no longer insisting on taking formal steps, where it turns out that these steps do not bring about a real result, even if they were taken as they should be."
- President Shamgar, in his judgment in the Roth In Israeli law, the courts used to send the winner to the Execution Office, rather than appointing a receiver, by virtue of Regulation 388 above, and especially, after In the section 53 The Execution Law granted authority to the head of the Execution Office"to appoint a receiver for a particular asset of the debtor, in order to carry out the necessary actions to enforce the judgment against the debtor." (פרשת Roth, Name, at p. 113, opposite letter F).
- And this is the wording of Section 53 to the Execution Law, which opens the The Chapter The Fifth of the Execution Law, titled "Receivership" (emphasis added):
“)a) The head of the Execution Office may, if he sees a need or benefit in the matter for the purpose of executing the judgment, appoint a receiver for a certain asset of the debtor.
(b) The head of the Execution Office may order that the receiver give a guarantee, to his satisfaction, in order to ensure his responsibility for the performance of his duties.
(c) Notice of the appointment of a receiver shall be given to the official receiver."
- How to behave in Israeli law, in which Section 53 The Execution Law allows the receivership of a certain asset, by order of the head of the Execution Office, while Regulation 388 Authorizes the court, even after the judgment, to appoint a receiver over all of the debtor's assets?
To this, President Shamgar responded, in the continuation of the aforementioned judgment, with the following words ( Roth, Name, at p. 113, opposite the letter G - p. 114, opposite the letter D):
"It could be argued that the said authority renders the execution proceeding superfluous from the integrity of the Civil Procedure Regulations, and it is not; The provision of section 53 ofthe Execution Law does not allow for the appointment of a receiver over all of the debtor's assets, but only for a specific asset (Civil Appeal 621/83 Bank Leumi Le-Israel v. Receiver of Bnei Dan, Marine and Civil Engineering Contractors Ltd., IsrSC 41(2) 660 [hereinafter - "CA 621/83"]]), and therefore, a winner of a judgment granting him rights to the debtor's assets cannot apply to the Execution Office with a request to appoint a receiver over all the assets. Moreover, the discretion of the head of the Writ of Execution when appointing a receiver under section 53 above is not as broad as the discretion of the trial judge; The head of the Execution Office plays an administrative role, and as such is not permitted to deal with areas that go beyond the scope of the powers expressly granted to him by law in order to carry out judgments. Thus, the head of the Execution Office is not entitled to appoint a receiver for an asset for equity considerations, as the court is permitted to do under Regulation 388 of the aforementioned regulations. If this is not enough, the head of the Execution Office is not authorized to grant the receiver powers that are not expressly stated in section 54 of the Execution Law, such as powers to search for assets that were concealed or concealed by the debtor, and whose whereabouts were not specified, as stated in Regulation 80(a) ofthe Execution Regulations, 5740-1979.