Summary of the parties' arguments in the motions that are the subject of this decision
- Counsel for the Applicants, states in his two motions, and in the written summaries, that the Respondent is in contempt of the court, and does not bother to carry out what was required by the arbitrator's award, which was approved by the District Court.
- As far as the application for receivership is concerned, counsel for the applicants emphasizes that he tried to act in the way of the Execution Office, in order to collect small sums of expenses, but the Respondent is deceived by the Execution Office, as well as in the appellate courts, and submits futile motions, at every step.
- In support of this argument, counsel for the applicants submitted a voluminous book, in which 51 references are detailed, about various actions carried out by counsel for the applicants, in the execution file, and in the appeals against it.
- Counsel for the Applicants further argues that the enforcement of the financial obligations against the Respondent, through the Execution Office, is ineffective.
In addition, counsel for the applicants further argues that according to the Supreme Court's ruling, it is not possible to appoint a receiver over all of the debtor's assets within the framework of the execution; The head of the Execution Office may appoint a receiver for only one asset.
Hence, according to the applicants, the only way to locate the respondent's assets is to appoint a receiver by the District Court, as requested by the applicants invarious civil applications 7150/07.
- On the other hand, the respondent's counsel, Adv. Zvi Shilo, argues that there is no place and no justification for deviation from the usual rule, according to which the collection of a financial debt is done only through the Execution Office.
- Counsel for the respondent, Adv. Zvi Shilo, adds that in applying to the court, the applicants acted in bad faith, by concealing that they - the applicants - had collected an additional sum from the respondent, by way of offset, by virtue of the approval of the foreclosures, and also by failing to report to the court that they had applied to the bankruptcy court with a request to declare the respondent bankrupt.
Adv. Shilo argues that these two omissions are sufficient to justify the result of the failure to comply with the applicants' request.
- Insofar as we are dealing with a motion for contempt of court, counsel for the applicants argues that this is the only way to enforce the execution of the injunction against the respondent to file an affidavit and accounts, as determined in the arbitrator's award, and confirmed in the judgment of the District Court.
- Counsel for the respondent did not respond directly to the motion for contempt of court, but argued that the applicants themselves did not comply with the arbitrator's award, and that they too did not produce documents and documentation, and therefore, according to him, the date for the execution of the respondent's obligations had not yet begun.
- Counsel for the Respondent also pointed out that the Applicants acted in a different way, by contacting the Registrar of Associations and adding the secretary of Applicant No. 2, as an additional member of the Association, in contravention of the principle of equality between the two parties, as equal owners of the soccer team.
Discussion