Federal Supreme: The urgent judiciary is concerned with imposing custody

The Federal Supreme Court affirmed that the urgent judiciary has jurisdiction to adjudicate the imposition of judicial receivership on a movable or real estate whenever a dispute arises in connection with it, which fears an urgent risk of the money remaining in the hands of its holder, and it is subject to the discretion of the trial court whenever it is acceptable.

And it rejected the appeals of partners in a real estate against a ruling that rejected their lawsuit regarding imposing judicial receivership on the property on the document that the case may not be considered for the previous decision.

In the details, Aqar partners filed a lawsuit against their partner to urgently demand the imposition of judicial receivership on the property due to the defendant's failure to fulfill the legal obligation in relation to the proceeds of the property and their rights.

The Court of First Instance ruled that it was not permissible to hear the case for its previous decision with the plaintiffs being obligated to pay the expenses, and the Court of Appeal confirmed it.

The Federal Supreme Court rejected the appeal, confirming that the judgments issued in the receivership lawsuits, although they have temporary authority, but that this authenticity remains as long as the circumstances of the case between the two parties do not change, indicating that the appealed ruling was decided to uphold the first ruling and that the case may not be considered for the previous decision in the application Judicial receivership - based on what is proven to him from the apparent documents of the case and its attachments - where the ruling on the same case has been preceded, and then the appealed ruling has ended in a correct judgment in this regard.

She emphasized that it is stipulated in the text of Article 29 of the Civil Procedures Law that (the urgent judiciary shall have jurisdiction over the imposition of judicial receivership on a movable or real estate or group of funds whenever a dispute arises in it or if the right to it is not fixed if the interest in the money collects with reasonable reasons. What is feared with him is an urgent danger that the money will remain in the possession of its holder), which indicates that the legislator, after setting the text of Article 28 of the same law, the conditions for the jurisdiction of the urgent judiciary in general, namely the urgency and not prejudice to the origin of the right, then returned and imposed for the judicial custody case the special text mentioned above and made According to it, the urgent judiciary shall have jurisdiction over the case of judicial receivership.

It concluded that the evidence from the appearance of the case documents and their attachments is the lack of a new element of urgency that is claimed, the unavailability of the real danger threatening the right to be protected, and the absence of the reason for the urgent action and its legal conditions.

Follow our latest local and sports news, and the latest political and economic developments via Google news