She accused him of seizing 12 million dirhams
A company demands reservations on a former employee villa
The Ras Al Khaimah court rejected the request due to the lack of evidence of indebtedness.
Archives
The Ras Al Khaimah Civil Court of Appeal rejected the request of a private company to precautionary seizure of the villa of a former employee, whom the company accused of seizing 12 million and 500 thousand dirhams, and he fled outside the country, due to the absence of the documents proving the debt.
In detail, a company filed a petition with the judge of urgent matters, demanding the signing of the precautionary seizure of the villa of an employee who used to work for it and seized the company's funds without completing the work, and refused to pay the value of the money, and demanded to address the Central Bank to inquire about any balances or accounts in the name of the employee to seize them. And addressing the Traffic Department to inquire about any cars belonging to him for seizure, as the Urgent Matters judge issued a decision rejecting the precautionary seizure order.
The verdict was not accepted by the company, so it instituted its appeal according to a statement of a case before the case management office, based on the fact that the appealed judgment made a mistake in applying the law, in addition to the lack of causation and corruption in the inference and the violation of the fixed papers, as the debt subject to the grievance and appeal is fixed in the shareholding contracts and checks Given to the former employee, especially since he fled outside the country, and then the conditions for issuing the order subject to appeal have been met.
In the statement of the Civil Appeal Court, it was stated that the judgment of the first degree was correct and consistent with the provisions of the law, and then the court shall decide to confirm it, because the legislator has permitted the creditor to request the judge of urgent matters, on a temporary basis, to impose precautionary seizure on the real estate and movables of his opponent in a situation in which he fears losing it, to ensure His right, if the debtor does not have a stable residence in the state, and if the creditor fears that his debtor will flee or his money is smuggled or hidden and this is with serious evidence, and if the debt securities are threatened with loss, and if the creditor holds an official or ordinary deed of a debt payable and not dependent on a condition And if he has a ruling that is not enforceable when the fixed debt is of a certain amount.
The ruling stated that the papers and documents submitted by the company do not prove the employee’s indebtedness, because checks are issued in the interest of the company, as well as the existence of a shareholding agreement between the company and the employee with its terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties.
She added that those documents and papers do not prove the indebtedness, but prove the agreements concluded between them, how to estimate the company, shares, the legal system and how to pay, and then the papers came free of proof of indebtedness, and with it the court ruled to reject the appeal and uphold the appealed ruling, and to oblige the company to pay the expenses and attorney fees.
Follow our latest local and sports news, and the latest political and economic developments via Google news