to investigate assets that have been concealed or concealed by the debtor;
Take action to realize the debtor's foreclosed assets and the additional assets that will be discovered in the future.
Miscellaneous Applications Civil 8189/07
- Miscellaneous Civil Applications It was filed by the applicants on December 16, 2007, and was entitled "Motion for Contempt of Court".
- The main argument in this application is that the respondent did not submit the affidavit of the full and accurate accounts, and did not attach the references and the full documentation, as determined by the arbitrator in the arbitrator's award (this part of the arbitrator's award, quoted in full in paragraph 9 above).
Counsel for the Applicants emphasizes this omission of the Respondent, since the arbitral award was given in December 2006, and the judgment of the court that upheld the arbitral award was given in June 2007.
Counsel for the applicants, in the framework of the description of the respondent's responses to the arbitrator's award and the court's judgment, adds the following: "as he did not fulfill his financial obligations according to the arbitrator's award and the judgment" (paragraph 5 of the paragraph, in parentheses, inMiscellaneous Applications Civil 8189/07, supra).
Respondent's Preliminary Argument
- Counsel for the respondent, Adv. Zvi Shilo, filed, on January 2, 2008, a preliminary application (Miscellaneous Applications Civil 1028/08 [Published in Nevo]), and more precisely, a motion to dismiss out of hand the two aforementioned motions, which were filed by the applicants' counsel. According to the respondent's counsel, this court has no jurisdiction to hear these motions, but rather they should be transferred to the Supreme Court, by virtue of Regulation 471 30Civil Procedure Regulations, 5744 - 1984 (hereinafter - the "SDA Regulations").
- In this regard, I have made a separate decision In Miscellaneous Applications Civil 1028/08 The above. This decision was published on the Nevo website, as well as in Takdin (2008 (1), 2803). Therefore, I do not see the need to go back, now, once more, and elaborate on it.
In summary, I rejected Adv. Shiloh's approach, and ruled that the authority to hear the applications before me rests with the District Court, before which the applications were lawfully filed. I further wrote that the filing of an application for leave to appeal by the respondent, after the filing of the aforementioned motions, by counsel for the applicants, does not retroactively negate the jurisdiction of the District Court, which was lawfully granted at the beginning of the proceedings, which is the day the application was filed (see, in particular, paragraph 4C of the decision given by me in the courtroom, in Miscellaneous Applications 1028/08, on January 14, 2008). When a refined and amended version is given on the 14th of Shevat 5768 (21.1.08)).