In any event, as far as I'm concerned, what is binding is the wording of the request, and as I said, I granted it (with a limit of six months, instead of a year). I am not prepared to consider the document of February 28, 2008, as an amendment to the application, especially since this was not stated at all and is not requested in that document.
- The document submitted by the applicants' counsel on April 27, 2008, is nothing new, other than updating the situation, in that even up to the aforementioned date, the respondent did not respect the arbitrator's award and the court's judgment, and he continues to despise them, according to the applicants.
- On June 12, 2008, another motion was filed on behalf of the Applicants, to expedite the decision, and in it too there is an update that the Respondent, as the Request states, "I admit wholeheartedly that he is beeping at the rulings and decisions of the honorable court." (Section 7 of the document; the word beeping was not written in quotation marks). Attached to the application was a statement of claim filed with the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court, in a summary proceeding, on April 8, 2008, by the Applicants against the Respondent, in which they petitioned to charge the Respondent in the sum of approximately ILS 885,000.
Needless to say, I do not intend to discuss a matter that is under the jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court in Jerusalem.
- On June 18, 2008, an urgent notice was filed on behalf of the applicants' counsel, to which was attached a notice submitted to the bankruptcy court (the Honorable Judge Yosef Shapira), in which the applicants' counsel, Adv. Segal, requests to delay the decision in the bankruptcy case against the respondent, until my decision in the case before me.
On this matter as well, I do not believe that it is appropriate for me to respond to requests submitted to another judge.
In any event, this is an answer to Adv. Shiloh's argument that the applicants are taking a two-pronged procedure: an application to appoint a receiver before me, and a request to declare the respondent bankrupt before the bankruptcy court. In addition, in this context, I will note that this notice by the applicants' counsel blunts the sting of another argument by Adv. Shilo, according to which the applicants have disappeared from this court the request to declare the respondent bankrupt. Now, it is clear that this application has no effect or influence on my decision regarding the receivership.
- On July 4, 2007, a letter was sent to me by the applicants' attorney, Adv. Yitzhak Mina, requesting a decision in the coming days.
I am not clear about this way of writing a letter to the judge, instead of submitting an orderly request to the secretariat, receiving an "accepted" stamp and sending a copy to the other party.