At the time of the hearing, and after the respondent and the counsel left, a judgment was rendered that was defined as a 'continuation' of the first and second judgments (hereinafter: " the third judgment"), in which it was held:
"Judgment
Copied from Nevo Continuation of the Judgments Given on Av 5785
The plaintiff Yosef Cohen (the owner of the Galei Tamar Hotel) and the defendant Mordechai Neumann came before us, accompanied by an attorney and a Tor.
Since the rabbinical claimant tried to disqualify the court, and the court did not give him permission to speak until after hearing the arguments of the plaintiff and the defendant, Mordechai Neumann and the Tor left the court.
The court sees this as contempt, and refusal!!
Therefore, the court gave Mordechai Neumann's check to Yosef Cohen for the balance amount of the last judgment.
The amount of payment determined by the court for the transfer of a hearing place (on Friday, Av 85) is ILS 1,590,000.
Mordechai Neumann transferred ILS 903,5000 to the hotel owner, of which the hotel owner refunded ILS 51,290 to a number of people who did not come and canceled their arrival, a total of ILS 51,290, and Mordechai Neumann paid ILS 852,219.
The remaining amount of Mordechai Neumann to pay is ILS 737,781.
In the transfer of the place of hearing, Mordechai Neumann gave a check for the sum of ILS 737,781 to Yosef Cohen, and Yosef Cohen is entitled to collect by check and execution.
It should be noted that the judgment does not rule out the possibility of Mordechai Neumann suing Yosef Cohen for service impairments, but rather that he chose to withdraw from the hearing on the advice of his client. ..."
The parties' arguments:
- In his motion to set aside the arbitral award, the Respondent argued that there were serious flaws in the conduct of the arbitration proceeding and in the rendering of the awards that establish grounds for annulment of the arbitral award by virtue of Article 24 of the Arbitration Law, 5728-1968 (hereinafter:- "Arbitration Law") as detailed below:
"24. The court may, at the request of a party (in this law - a request for annulment), annul an arbitral award, in whole or in part, supplement, amend or return it to the arbitrator, on one of the following grounds: