232 Commercial 232 Discrimination Challenge

This post is also available in: العربية (Arabic)

232 Commercial 232 Discrimination Challenge
At the public meeting on Thursday, 10 January 2005
Headed by Zaki Ibrahim al-Masri, head of the department
And the membership of The Judges Ramadan Amin Al-Labody, Sayed Abdul Rahim Al-Shimi, Hussein Abdul Hamid Hassan and Saif al-Nasr Suleiman Mohammed

(1) It is decided in the judiciary of this court in accordance with the text of article 81 of the Law of Proof in civil and commercial transactions that the expert’s claim to the opponents before him is a fundamental measure intended to enable them to defend their interests and the violation of the work of the expert.

(2) If the commissioner is returned to the expert to carry out the work requested by the court to complete his mission, then he must sue the liabilities to come again, If he had not begun his task previously assigned to him, or the re-assignment required him to complete it by moving to the adversaries, or the adversaries had provided him with reliable documents in the absence of his opponent in the re-establishment of the report, because the resumption of the work of his interruption, which the opponent was aware of, is a new beginning for him to realize the reason for the call to enable the opponents to follow the work of the expert and defend their interests.

The government’s support
After reading the papers and hearing the summary report that was read by the hearing of judge Ramadan Amin Al-Laboudi and after deliberation,
Since the appeal fulfilled his formal status,
As the facts show from the contested judgment and other papers, the ——— Shipping Company (llc) has filed against (1) the ———— ——— Marine Services Corporation (2) ———- in the Dubai branch of The Dubai Branch, 262/2001, a total commercial before the Dubai Court of First Instance requesting the first defendant to pay $44,000 or the equivalent of AED 461,182. In solidarity with the first plaintiff, the second defendant will perform in solidarity with the first plaintiff of 38,000 U.S. dollars or 139,650 dirhams and interest of 9% of the due date on 3/10/2000, on the basis that under an agreement dated 23/9/2000 agreed with the first plaintiff to transport cargo shipments to Iran from Jebel Ali to Iran by the locomotives and barges belonging to it, The first defendant should bear daily delayed fines in case of delay in implementation The plaintiff was entitled to delay fines of the amount claimed, and the second plaintiff sent the plaintiff a letter dated 23/10/2000 committing to pay the claimed amount, which the plaintiffs failed to pay, and therefore the case was initiated. The Court appealed to an expert to access the ship books to show the truth of the relationship between the parties in the light of the shipping agreement of 23 September 2000, which the plaintiff deserved from the delay fines claimed, After the expert submitted his report, the sheriff’s court returned to him to carry it out, Then he submitted his second report and ruled on 13 May 2003 that the defendants were obliged in solidarity to pay the plaintiff $16,545 U.S. dollars or the equivalent of AED at the time of execution and interest of 9% per annum from 7 April 2001 until full payment, The first plaintiff appealed this ruling on appeal No. 903/2003 rights and on 13 December 2003 the court ruled – in the absence of the litigants – to reject the appeal and support the appealed judgment, The first plaintiff challenged this provision of discrimination, according to his newspaper, which filed the pen of this court’s book on 29 May 2004, requesting its reversal, The lawyer of the stabber against her filed a motion of defense on time and requested that the appeal be rejected.
Whereas, the institution that appealed to the contested judgement is invalidated, the court based its appeal judgement on the report of the supplementary expert, which is invalidated by the failure to invite the litigants to meet with him after the reinstatement of the first court, although the impugned against him submitted new documents and documents on which the expert relied on the preparation of his report without submitting it to the appellant to respond to it in a way that would prejudice the contested judgement and must be overturned.
Since this obituary is appropriate, it is decided in the judiciary of this court in accordance with the text of article 81 of the Law of Proof in Civil and Commercial Transactions that the expert’s claim to the opponents is a fundamental procedure intended to enable them to defend their interests and the consequences of his violation is nullify the work of the expert, Therefore, if the commissioner is returned to the expert to carry out the work requested by the court to complete his mission, then he must sue the liabilities to come again, If he had not begun his task previously assigned to him, or the re-assignment required him to complete it by moving to the adversaries, or the adversaries had provided him in the absence of his opponent with reliable documents in the re-report, because the resumption of the work of his interruption, which the opponent was aware of, is a new beginning for him to realize the reason for the call to enable the opponents to follow the work of the expert and defend their interests, Since this was established in the papers that the expert submitted his second report in which he relied on information from the plaintiff – challenged against her first – gathered after reviewing the daily record of the tug boat Thamrin during the diameter of the barge Taysum and photographs extracted from it, This report was not possible to suggest that the expert issued his call for obedience, and the latter had expressed its defence before the Court of Appeal by nullifying the report of the expert referred to for violating article 81 of the Evidentiary Act for not inviting her to appear before him and accepting new documents submitted by the impugned against her in the absence of the appellant, which is a fundamental defence that invalidates the work of the expert and therefore nullifythe judgment that was based on him. It would nullify the work of the expert when returning the mission to him to study the objections of the opponents, he must have violated the law as well as violating the right of the appellant to defend what he is wrong with and must be revoked for this reason without the need to examine the other grounds of appeal.
So.
The court ruled that the appealed verdict be overturned and that the case be referred to the Court of Appeal for re-adjudication and the court of appeal against them and the amount of 1,000 dirhams in exchange for the fees of the lawyers.

Category: Dubai Court
Tags: ,
Previous Post
Appeal 217 for 2006
Next Post
Appeal No. 16 of 2010 Civilian

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Fill out this field
Fill out this field
Please enter a valid email address.
You need to agree with the terms to proceed

Menu