Overview
- The starting point for the discussion is this: there is an agreed figure, according to which the respondent paid nothing on account of the debt (except for a small offset and the collection of a sum of ILS 150).
In addition, the respondent - as appears from his testimony before me and the words of his counsel, even in written summaries - does not intend to pay a penny voluntarily.
As a result, therefore, the execution of the judgment must be enforced on the respondent, by all available legal means.
- The second basic assumption, in the legal field, which is indisputable, is that the "king's way" for collecting a monetary debt is to open a writ of execution file.
In this regard, it is necessary to remember and mention the well-known matter, which is set forth in Section 6 ofthe Execution Law, 5727-1967 (hereinafter - the "Execution Law"), which outlines the way for the execution of a judgment, as follows: "The winner may submit a request to any Execution Office for the execution of the judgment; He shall state therein, as far as he knows, identifying details of the debtor as will be determined, and if he is a minor or legally incapacitated, and shall also interpret therein the proceedings which he wishes to be taken, and he may, from time to time, request that additional proceedings be taken."
- Following the execution request, a warning is sent to the debtor to execute the judgment, when the execution begins with the charge for payments, and thus the case is launched (see: Sections 7 and7A to the Execution Law). In the continuation of the Execution Law, the law regulates additional means of enforcing the judgment, including the following:
realization of the debtor's assets by way of foreclosure of movables and real estate (Chapters II and III of the Execution Law);
foreclosure by a third party (chapter IV of the same law);
Receivership (Chapter 5 of the Execution Law), which I will refer to below.
- There is no dispute that the applicants were entitled, and are still entitled today, to follow this path. The problem is that the Applicants tried this means of enforcement, through the Execution Office, but encountered a Respondent who is a "hard nut", which, as stated, succeeded in exhausting the Applicants' counsel in 51 proceedings, for the purpose of collecting ILS 20,000 plus VAT, which the Applicants won in the proceeding in 2005, and after those 51 proceedings, the Applicants succeeded in collecting only ILS 150!
- Therefore, it is now necessary to deal with the Applicants' argument that it is appropriate to choose another way of enforcing the arbitral award and the judgment of the District Court, namely: the appointment of a receiver by the District Court, by virtue of Regulation 388 30Civil Procedure Regulations.
Receivership under Regulation 388 of the Civil Procedure Regulations
- The Applicants rely on Regulation 388 to the SDA regulations, the marginal title of which is "Appointment of a Receiver", and that this is its full wording (emphasis added):
|
")a) If an application for the appointment of a receiver has been filed, the court, or a registrar who is a judge, if it deems it just and convenient, may, in accordance with Form 45, do the following: