Go Back
Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 19,152 of the 15th October 2013
01/01/2013
Notice 1581
1581By a decree given on the 12th September, 2013 by the Civil Court First Hall, the Court ordered that the extract hereunder mentioned be published for the purpose of service according to Article 187(3) of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure (Chapter 12).
By the application filed in the Civil Court First Hall on the 10th September, 2013, by Rita Caruana (I.D. 438157M) is being asked that the Court orders the sale by auction of the:
The tenement numbered 144, ‘Aloha’, in Triq Benedittu, Ħal Kirkop, with the garage, valued at € 244,584.21.
The said property belongs to Rita Caruana (I.D. 438157M) and Emanuel Caruana (I.D. 673756M) in equal shares.
N.B The said tenements will be sold as described in the acts of file number 34/13.
Bruno Zahra
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1582
1582IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a judgement given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Judicature on the 2nd October 2013 (Magistrate Dr Saviour Demicoli LL.D., M.Phil. ) in the case :-
The Police
(Inspector Sarah Magri)
(Inspector Carol Fabri)
Vs
JOSEF DEMICOLI, today 22 years, son of Domnic and Teresa née Mercieca, born Pietà on the 03/01/1991, residing158, Victory Street, Ħamrun and holder of Identity Card number 37591M;
ORDERED the general interdiction against the said Josef Demicoli as well as interdiction from acting as witness, except in a court of law, or from acting as referee in any case whatsoever for a period of five (5) years in terms of Section 109 of Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta.
This is being published according to Section 10(7) of Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta.
Dr John Seychell Navarro
Dip. Hlth Science, Dip Mgmt Stud., Dip. Not. Pub., LL.B., LL,D
Assistant Registrar
Criminal Courts and Criminal Tribunals (Malta)
Notice 1583
1583By a decree of the 19th September, 2013 given by the Court of the Magistrates, the Court ordered that the extract hereunder mentioned be published for the purpose of service according to article 187(3) of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure (Chapter 12).
That by the application filed by RiteMix Gatt Bros Limited on the 9th May 2013 is asking for the withdrawal of the amount of €4354.77 deposited by the Schedule of Deposit number 756/13 in the names of:
RiteMix Gatt Bros Limited C 2821 vs Sasa Torbarov qua rapprezentant ta’ Coruna Company Limited C 30664
Marvic Farrugia
For Registrar of Courts and Civil Tribunals
Notice 1584
1584By a decree of the 20thSeptember, 2013 given by the Court of the Magistrates, the Court ordered that the extract hereunder mentioned be published for the purpose of service according to article 187(3) of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure (Chapter 12).
That by the application filed by Herman Magro on the 8th August 2012 is asking for the withdrawal of the amount of €1271.07 deposited by the Schedule of Deposit number 1158/03 in the names of:
Herman Magro et vs Anthony Ellul et
Marvic Farrugia
For Registrar of Courts and Civil Tribunals
Notice 1585
1585By decree given by the COURT OF MAGISTRATES (GOZO) INFERIOR JURISDICTION, on the 22nd August 2013 on the application of Fort Reality Ltd operator of the make ‘Remax Property Center’ in the records of judicial sale by auction number 25/2013 in the names of Fort Reality Ltd operator of the make ‘Remax Property Center’ vs Marco Attard et Monday 25th November 2013 at 11.00 a.m. and until the highest bid is adjudicated, has been fixed for the SALE BY AUCTION to be held at the Gozo Court’s edifice in Cathedral Square, Victoria, Gozo, of the following items:
1. Coffee table with a marble top
2. Sofa 2 seater
3. Sofa 3 seater
4. Armchair
5. 3 small oak tables
6. A framed mirror
7. An oval oak table
8. Six oak chairs
9. An oak showcase
The said items are the property of Marco Attard (ID: 40657G) and his wife Anna Attard (ID: 19557G).
Jaclyn Magrin
For the Registrar
Gozo Courts And Tribunals
Notice 1586
1586By means of a decree given, on the 10th September, 2013, by the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Appeal Application, in the names Maltese Cross Co. Ltd vs Amarcord Limited et, Application number 1092/05 JZM, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondents Amarcord Limited and Mark and Rita spouses Schembri, in terms of Articles 187(3) et. of Chapter 12.
By means ofAppeal Application filed in the Court of Appeal, Application Number 1092/05 JZM, in the names Maltese Cross Company Limited (C 18392) vs Amarcord Limited (C 36152) and Mark and Rita spouses Schembri, on the 28th June 2013, the applicant company Maltese Cross Company Limited (C 18392) respectfully pleaded;
1.That the plaintiff company previously Youth Hostels Limited, sublet to the defendants Mark and Rita Schembri, the premises known as Tramps Bar, in Spring Street, corner with St. Anthony Street, in Saint Paul’s Bay, by means of a contract of the 21st February, 1995, records Notary Dr. Francis Micallef.
2. That clause 10 in the said contract stipulated that the defendants Schembri had the right to operate the business through a company as long as they have 70% of the shares between them.
3. That in terms of clause 11 of the said contract the defendants Schembri had the right to cede the premises in question to third parties as long as they notify the plaintiff company with a registered letter.
4. That apart from thisclause 12 of the said contract stipulated that the plaintiff company had to recieve one third of the sum concerning the said assignment in clause 11.
5. That on the 7th May, 1997, Mark and Rita Schembri assigned the leaseof the premises to the company Bistit African Ventures Ltd. In this company Mark and Rita Schembri were shareholders and directors together with two Nigerians, who had the legal representation of this company.
6. That on the 19th May, 1999, payment was made representing the correspective paid for the assignement in question and the two Nigerian directors above mentioned insisted with Rita Schembri, to pass one third of the sum paid to Joseph Borg, as director of the company Maltese Cross Company Ltd, previously Youth Hostels Limited, in order that they be acknowleged as the new lessees of the premises in question.
7. That notwithstanding the defendant Rita Schembri and this so that she does not pass one third of the price of the assignment due to the plaintiff company told the Nigerian lessees that Joseph Borg , or rather the director of the plaintiff company was racist.
8....................omissis.............
9..........................omissis.............
10. That when the Nigerian lessees went for a holiday in England during the winter of the year 2002 and left the premises closed for some months, the defendants Schembriforced open the premises and took possession of it once again, despite that they had ceded abusively and illegallytheir rights relating to the lease on the said premises.
11. That thus the plaintiff company filed the cause Writ of Summons 708/13, in the names Maltese Cross Company Limited vs Mark and Rita spouses Schembri, which cause was decided pending the present cause by the Honourable Court of Appeal, on the 3rd February, 2009, where the Court, ordered the eviction from the premises of the defendants Schembri, within thirty days and thus the contract of the 21st February 1995 was rescinded and annulled.
12.........omissis.............
13. That on the 4th April, 2005, Rita and Mark Schembri, by means of a contract published by Notary Ivan Barbara, assigned the lease in question in terms of the contract of the 21st February, 1995, to the company Amacord Limited and this despite that they had ceded the rights of the lease to the Nigerian lessees.
14................omissis................
15.................omissis.................
16. That on the 15th September, 2005, the plaintiff company was informed that the spouses Schembri assignedthe lease to the defendant Amarcord Limited, by means of a contract of the 14th April, 2005 and this without abiding with the clauses of the contract of the 21st February, 1995, in the records of Notary Francis Micallef.
17. That thus the abusive and illegal behaviour of all the defendants who did not abide with the provisions of the contract of the 21st February, 1995, as well as the abusive and illegal behaviourof the spouses Schembri, who failed to honourtheir lease obligations, the plaintiff suffered damages representing arrears of rent due on the premises in question which were never paid, due to the illegal occupation of the premises in question on the part of the defendants, as well as payment of permits and licenses concerning the said premiseswhich damages were liquidated for the sum of €82,946.24, by the defendants themselves, by means of a partition agreement of damages signed between them on the 10 th April, 2009.
18.That thus by means of a writ of summons of the 15th November 2005, the plaintiff company asked this Honourable First Hall so that;
1.It declares and decides that the contract of the 21st February, 1996, in the records of Notary Francis Micallef and of the 4th April, 2005, in the records of Notary Ivan Barbara be annulled and rescinded.
2. To evict the defendants or either of whom from the premises Tramps Bar today Little Italy Restaurant, St. Anthony Street, Buġibba.
3. To condemn the spouses Schembri to pay the sum indicated in this application, with legal interest, from when they were due, representing the amount due for the abusive application and without title of the defendants or either of whom of the premises mentioned, which sum covers also the amount that the plaintiff was bound to pay to the competent authorities for permits and licenses in terms of the lease agreement of the 21st February, 1995, records Notary Francis Micallef.
4. Condemn furthermore the defendants or either of whomto pay the plaintiff company the sum indicated in this demand or more correct sum and the interest from the 4th April, 2005, till the date of effective payment, which sum represents what the defendants Schembri had recieved from the defendant company Amarcord Limited, for the goodwill of the premises mentionedwhen this was illegally and abusively assigned as stated in this application.
5. Liquidate if necessary by the appointment of referees any damages suffered by the plaintiff company, as a consequence of the abusive assignment above mentioned.
6. Consequently condemnthe defendants or either of whom to pay those damages so liquidated.
With costs and the defendants are summoned so that a reference to their evidence be made.
19. That by means of their note of pleas the defendants Schembri pleaded that;
1. That the plaintiff’s demands are unfounded in fact and at law and should be rejected, with costs.
1.1.................omissis...........
1.2..................omissis..........
1.3..................omissis..........
1.4...............omissis.............
1.5 As for the fifth and sixth demand there were not taken note of damages caused to the plaintiff company both for the assignment by the interpellant which was made according to that stipulated and provided in the contract of the 21st February, 1995, and also becausethere had been passed to the plaintiff company all the payments due to it according to the contract of the 21st February, 1995, and the same plaintiff company chose not to accept these payments.
2. Saving further pleas.
20. That the company Amarcord Limited, by means of its Note of pleas, pleaded that the plaintiff’s demandsare all unfounded in fact and at law and thus should be rejected in their entirety with costs against the same plaintiffs for the following reasons;
1.That on the merit the defendant company Amarcord Ltd, observed all the clauses of the contract of the 4th April, 2005, in the records of Notary Ivan Barbara.
2....................omissis..............
3.....................omissis.............
4. That thus it follows that as regards the defendant company Amarcord Limited and the contractdated 4th April 2005, in the records of Notary Ivan Barbara, all the demands are to be rejcted with costs, as regards the plaintiff company.
5. Saving further pleas according to Law.
That by means of a judgement given by the Honourable First Hall Civil Court on the 10th June, 2013, in the names premised the Court, decided the cause by:
1. It abstained from taking further cognizance of the first demand in that part which concerns the contract of the 21st February in the records of Notary Francis Micallef, between the plaintiff company previously Youth Hostels Limited and the defendants Schembri and this in view of the judgement of the Court of Appeal of the 3rd February, 2009, in the cause in the names Maltese Cross Company Limited vs Mark and Rita spouses Schembri.
2..................omissis...............
3..................omissis.................
4.....................omissis..............
5. Rejected the fourth, fifth and sixth demand of the plaintiffs.
That the plaintiff company felt aggrieved by the decision by the Honourable Court of First Instance and is thus filing this appeal therefrom. That the grievance of the interpellant is clear and manifest and consists primarilyof the fact that with all due respect the Honourable Court of First Instance, was mistaken in the liquidation of damages suffered by the plaintiff company due to its abusive and illegal behaviour of the defendants and liquidated the damages in the sum of €15,911.60 and this despite that by means of an agreement DOK RSi a. fol 164 in the proceedings the defendants accepted that the damages suffered by the plaintiff company to €82,946.24 subsequently reduced to €73,150.09 after payment on account.
..................omissis............
That the grievances of the interpellant are the following:
1. That in the first place the appellant company feels aggrieved with the fact that the Honourable Court of First Instance upheld that the compensation for damages due for the abusive and illegal occupation of the premises on the part of the defendant was only €15,911.60.
2. That effectively the grievance of the interpellantsconsists in fact that the Honourable Courtof First Instance, failed to consider despite that it was a decision of the Court of Appeal which confirmed that the occuptation of the defendants was illegal and abusive and that such abusive occupation started much earlier, the Court of Appeal pronounced itself.
3. That the effects of the abusive and illegal occupation of the defendantsstart to runfrom when such abusive and illegal occupation comences and not from the Court decision, which decision serves to confirm the plaintiff’s version.
4. That the exercise that the Honourable Court of First Instance had to do in order to consider from when the damages due to the abusive and illegal occupation had commenced, was that appliedby Maltese Courts, for debts, which are liquid, certain and due.
5. That the damages suffered by the plaintiff company represent arrears of rent which were not paid and payments of licenses and permits to the authorities which amongst others amount to €73,150.09.
6. That the interpellant feels aggrieved also due to the fact that he suffered various damages due to the contractual default of he defendants........omissis..the Honourable Court of First Instancewith all due respect decided the cause by condemning the defendants to pay only the damages which represent the default in the last year of the dispute between the parties.
7................omissis...............
8.................omissis..............
9. That thus the grievance of the interpellant consists in the fact that although the Honourable Court of First Instance, liquidated the damages in question due to the abusive and illegal behaviour of the defendants, by considering that such damages commenced from the judgement of the Court of Appeal, it failed to consider that effectively the illegal and abusive occupation of the defendants did not start from the judgement of the Court of Appeal, but comenced when the premises was assigned to Bistit African Ventures Limited.
10..............omissis.............
11. That the grievance of the interpellant consists also in that the Honourable Court of First Instance gave no consideration to the fact that the defendants themselves by means of a private writing dated 10th April, 2009, had accepted that the payment due for the damages suffered was that of €82,946.24.
12..................omissis...............
13..................omissis..............
14..................omissis..................
15. That the importance of the agreement of the 10th April, 2009, is not whether the said writing was accepted by the plaintiff company or not, or whether the said company signatory to it..omissis... but it is the fact that the said agreement presented by the defendants themselves in the causewas tantamount to acceptance of the amount of damages liquidated and thus the grievance of the interpellant consists in the factthat the Honourable Court of First Instance, comletely avoided such proof.
16. That thus the interpellant company feels agrieved of the fact that once the defendants accepted and are well aware that the damages they caused to the plaintiff company, so much so thatthey agreed between them, how they shouldpartition such damages, the Court, should not have avoided such proof, but should have based such liquidation on such agreement.
17................omissis.................
18.....................omissis................
19. That apart from this and without prejudice to the premised,that granted but not conceded that the line of argument taken by the Honourable Court of First Instance, concerining the third demand was correctand thus the damages due to the plaintiff companywere those representing the period between the judgement of the 3rd February 2009 and the handing over of the keys on the 10th April 2010, back to the plaintiff company the rest of the damages suffered by the plaintiff which represent the period before the judgement of the Court of Appeal, are still due in terms of the fifth and sixth demand.
20...............omissis................
Thus the appellant company,whilst referringto the proof and all the records produced before the Court of First Intance and whilst reserving to bring forward all that permitted according to law, is demanding this Honourable Court of Appeal, to reform the judgement given by the First Hall Civil Court, on the 10th June, 2013, as demanded in this application and amongst other things, for the condemning of the payment of the sums demandedin the application, with legal interest from the dates when each individual amount became due.
With costs of both instances against the respondent defendants.
Appellant: Maltese Cross Company Limited, J.B. Bureau Triq is-Srik, Swieqi.
Respondents: Mark and Rita spouses Schembri, Sardinella, Wardija Hill, Wardija.
Amarcord Limited, Villa Rimini, Triq id-Dirsa, Attard.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LL.D.
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1587
1587NOTICE
Whereas the plaintiff Angel Caruana (ID 376079M) filed an application under oath (No. 201/13RGM) demanding CORRECTIONS in the ACT OF BIRTH of the minor child Samantha Caruana number 2893/2011 in the Public Registry.
Whosoever may have an interest therein, and wishes to oppose that demand, is hereby called upon to do so, by means of a note to be filed in the Registry of these Courts, within fifteen days from the day of the publication of this present notice in the Government Gazette.
Those who, within the aforesaid time, shall have filed such note, shall be notified by the service of a copy of the said application under oath, of the day which will be appointed for the hearing of the case.
By order of the Court,
Cora Azzopardi
For Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1588
1588By a decree of the 18th July, 2013 given by the First Hall of the Civil Courts, ordered that the extract hereunder mentioned be published for the purpose of service according to article 187(3) of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure (Chapter 12).
That by the application filed by Catherine Bartolo on 27th July, 2012 is asking for the withdrawal of the amount of €695.14 deposited by the Schedule of Deposit number 622/2012 in the names of:
Catherine BartoloVsJoseph Bartolo
The Court ordered the notification of this application with four (4) days for filing a reply.
Marvic Farrugia
For Registrar of Courts and Civil Tribunals
By means of a decree given, by the First HallCivil Court, on the 2nd October, 2013, in the records of the Sworn Application in the names Chircop Philip et vs Mifsud Felix et, application number 431/13 JA, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the defendant, in terms of Article 187(3) etof Chapter 12.
By means of a Sworn Application, filed, in the First Hall Civil Court,in the names Philip and Rita Chircopvs Felix Mifsud and Miriam Bezzinaand Catacombs Ltd (C 22810) on the 7th May 2013, the applicants Philip and Rita Chircop , identity cards number 360458(M) and 225163(M) respectively, asked this Honourable Court:
1. To declare that the respondents have no legal title to occupy garage 104, Philip Garage, in Triq il-Koppla, Fgura, order the respondents to vacate the same garage within a short and peremptory period and uphold the other demands in the application.
With interests and costs and the respondents are from now summoned so that a reference to their evidence be made.
Applicants: 57, ‘Sardinella’ Triq il-Bajd, Naxxar.
Respondents: 11, Triq San Ġużepp, Msida or
20, Triq San Ġużepp, Msida.
The Sworn Application in the names Chircop Philip et vs Mifsud Felix et, application number 431/13 JA, has been put off to the 1st November, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LL.D.
For the Reġistrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1589
1589By decree given by the Court of Magistrates (Gozo) Superior Jurisdiction, General Section, on the 9th September 2013 on the application of the Hon. Dr Anton Refalo in the records of judicial sale by auction number 27/2013 (and after warrant of seizure 131/2013)in the names of Hon. Dr Anton Refalo vs Andrew Grech et Monday 18th November 2013 at 10.30a.m. and until the highest bid is adjudicated, has been fixed for the SALE BY AUCTION to be held at the Gozo Court’s edifice in Cathedral Square, Victoria, Gozo, of the following items:
Sofa 3 seater
Two armchairs
Coffee table with a marble top
Corner (of a dark colour)
Stool
An oak grandfather clock
Two chest of drawers
Two lampshades
Piano
The said items are the property of Andrew Grech (ID: 43439G) and his wife Mary Grech (ID: 4740G).
Jaclyn Magrin
For the Registrar
Gozo Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1590
1590By means of a decree given by the First Hall Civil Court, on the 4th October 2013, in the records of the Sworn Application, in the names Ta’ Kola Limited C 33068 vs DB Installations Services Limited C 23983, application number 556/13 SM, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the defendants, in terms of Article 187(3) et. of Chapter 12.
By means of a Sworn Application, filed in the First Hall Civil Court, in the names Ta’ Kola Limited C 33068 vs DB Installations Services Limited C 23983, on the 6th June, 2013, the applicant company Ta’ Kola Limited, respectfully pleaded and asked this Honourable Court:
1.To declare that the defendant company is responsible for all the damages sufferedby the plaintiff company in the property mentioned in the application due to the default of the defendant company, liquidate if necessary by means of the of the appointment of referees the damages it suffered in the premises mentioned and uphold the other demands in the application.
With costs, against the defendant company summoned so that a reference to its evidence be made.
Applicant: Ta’ Kola Limited,
Aries House, Mdina Road, Żebbuġ.
Defendants: DB Installations Services Limited,
55, Triq Jannara, Birkirkara.
The Sworn Application in the names Ta’ Kola Limited C 33068 vs DB Installations Services Limited C 23983, application number 556/13 SM, has been put off for hearing to the 4th December 2013, at 9.00 a.m.
Reġistry of the Superior Courts, today 11th October 2013.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LL.D
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1591
1591NOTICE
Whereas the plaintiff Charlton Mifsud (ID 457885M) filed an application under oath (No. 193/13RGM) demanding CORRECTIONS in the ACT OF BIRTH of the minor child Denzel Cachia number 831/2009 in the Public Registry.
Whosoever may have an interest therein, and wishes to oppose that demand, is hereby called upon to do so, by means of a note to be filed in the Registry of these Courts, within fifteen days from the day of the publication of this present notice in the Government Gazette.
Those who, within the aforesaid time, shall have filed such note, shall be notified by the service of a copy of the said application under oath, of the day which will be appointed for the hearing of the case.
By order of the Court,
Cora Azzopardi
For Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1592
1592By means of a decree given , by the First Hall Civil Court, on the 16th September, 2013, in the records of the Sworn Application, in the names Bank of Valletta plc vs Isabella Bondin, application number 715/13 AE, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent in terms of Article 187(3) et. of Chapter 12.
Bymeans of a Sworn Application filed in the First Hall Civil Court, in the names Bank of Valletta p.l.c. (C 2833) vs Isabella Bondin (ID 404667M) on the 24th July 2013, the applicant company Bank of Valletta p.l.c. asked the defendant to state why this Court should not:
1.Declare and decide that there occurred one or more of the events mentioned in the private writings mentioned in the application, particulary as Isabella Bondin, failed to make the payments due to the interpellant company, condemn Isabella Bondin, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of twenty thousand one hundred and thirteen Euro and five cents (€20,113.05) balance of debt in the ‘Loan Accounts’ of Isabella Bondin, with the Bank of Valletta p.l.c. together with further legal interest, from the 15th June, 2013, till the date of effective payment.
With costs, as demanded against the defendant summoned so that a reference to her evidence be made.
Plaintiff company: Bank of Valletta p.l.c. ( C 2833)
1/5, Misraħ San Ġorġ, Valletta, VLT 1190.
Defendant: Isabella Bondin,
112, ‘Our Nest’
Triq ir-Rixtellu,
Luqa.
The Sworn Application in the names Bank of Valletta p.l.c. vs Bondin Isabella, application number 715/13 AE, has been put off for hearing to the 6th December 2013, at 8.45 a.m.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD.
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1593
1593by a decree of the 10th october, 2013, given by the first hall civil court, the court ordered that the extract hereunder mentioned be published for the purpose of service according to article 338(1) of the code of organization and civil procedure (chapter 12)
That by application and a Schedule of set-off filed contemporaneously by Carmel Mangion on the 8th October, 2013, the approval of the said judicial acts is being demanded for the amount of €500 following judicial sale by auction 24/13 in the names Carmel Mangion vs Yorick Mallia, held under the Authority of the said Court on the 7th October, 2013.
According to Article 338 (2) of Chapter 12: Any person who may have an interest and the persons so served shall be allowed the time of twenty days to file an answer stating in detail the reasons for their opposition and the amounts in contestation; and where such opposition is based on a claim against the proceeds of sale an alleged cause of preference, they are to state the amount of such claim and the basis for the preference. Such persons shall with the answer file all relevant evidence to substantiate their opposition.
Marvic Farrugia
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1594
1594By means of a decree given by the First Hall Civil Court, on the 29th April 2013, in the records of the Sworn Application, in the names Malta Industrial Parks Limited vs G.S. Specialist Vehicles Limited, application number 182/13 JA, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the defendant company, in terms of Article 187(3) et. of Cap. 12.
By means of a Sworn Application, filed in the Civil Court First Hall, in the names Malta Industrial Parks Limited (C 28965) vs G.S. Specialist Vehicles Limited (C 33195)application number 182/13 JA, on the 22nd February 2013, the applicant conmpany Malta Industrial Parks Limited, asked this Honourable Court, saving the necessary and opportune provisions:
1. To declare that the defendant company is occupying the factory KKW400E, in the KordinIndustrial Sector, without a valid title at law, ordered the defendants so that within a short and peremptory period fixed to them they vacate the factory KKW400 E, in the Kordin Industrial Sector and uphold the other demands in the application including the payment of compensation for the occupation of the factory.
With costs and with interest and saving any right of action due to the plaintiff company.
Applicant: Malta Enterprise Centre, Triq it-Telgħa ta’ Gwardamanġa, Pietà.
Defendant: KKW400E, Qasam Industrijali ta’ Kordin, Paola.
The Sworn Application in thenames Malta Industrial Parks Limited vs G.S. Specialist Vehicles Limited, application number 182/13 JA, has been put off for hearing to the 15th January 2014, at 9.30 a.m.
Adv. Frank Portelli,LL.D.
For the Registrar.Civil Courts and Tribunals
Bann for Curators
1595Republic of Malta
To The Marshall of the Court.
By means of a decree given by this Court, on the 23rd February 2010, following the request of MEM Developments Limited,it was ordered that Deputy Curators be chosen to representthe other unknownownersof the directum dominium of the emphyteutical concession relating to the property in the records of the Scheduleof redemption of groundrent number 179/2010, in the names Mem Developments Limited vs Deputy Curators and in the relative and subsequent acts.
By means of a Schedule of deposit and redemption of groundrent, filed inthe First Hall Civil Court, in the names MEM Developments Limited (C47144) vs Deputy Curators appointed to represent the other unknown owners of the directus dominius of the empytheutical concession regarding the property hereunder described,on the 12th February 2010, the applicant company MEMDevelopmentsLimited ( C 47144) respectfully pleaded;
That the applicant is the owner of the premises number five (5) Triq il-Gnien ta’ Ta’ Xbiex, sometimes known as Gżira, subject to the annual and perpetual groundrent of (€6.83).
That this premises was acquired by the applicantthe company ‘John Ripard and Sons Limited’ (C40) by meansof a contract in the records of Notary Dr. Pierre Cassar, 31st December 2009.
That the said companyJohn Ripard and Son Limited (C40) had acquired the premises above mentioned by means ofanother contract records Notary Dr Pierre Cassar dated twenty seventh April 2004, from brothers/sisters Bezzina.
That originally the property above described was acquired by Giovanni and Gaetanaspouses Bezzina who died on the twentieth (20) of August 1943 and twenty-third (23) April 1937.
That the owners of the directum dominium are unknown to the interpellants.
That the interpellants wish to avail themselves of the provisions of Article 1501 of the Civil Code and redeem the same groundrent as stipulated in the same law.
That the sum of ( €6.83) capitalised at the rate of five per cent amounts to (€136.00).
Thus the intetpellant in order to redeem the groundrent on the premises above mentioned in the amount as premisedcall upon this Court and under its Authority ares depositing the global sum of €136.60 in order to be freely withdrawn by who has the right according to law after the due receipt is left.
Interpellant: Apartment 3, ‘Villa Eugenie’ Dun Gaetano Mannarino, Birkirkara.
Notify: 1. Deputy Curators, Courts of Justice, Valletta.
2. Director Public Registry, Public Registry, Valletta (two services)
3. Lands Registry, Casa Bolino, West Street, Valletta.
You are therefore ordered to affix an official copy of this bann at the entrance of this Superior Court and to summon whosoever wishes to act as curator to appear before this Registry within six days and by means of a minute to submit a declaration that he wishes so to act.
You are also ordered to inform each one that if he fails to make this declaration within the stipulated time, the Court will proceed to the selection of Curators of Office.
And after so acting or if you ahould encounter any difficulty in the execution of this bann, you are to inform forthwith this Court.
Given by the Civil Court First Hall,above mentioned, with the witness of the Hon. Mr. Justice Raymond C. Pace, LLD.
Doctor of Laws.
Adv. Frank Portelli,LL.D.
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Court Warrant
1596By means of a decree given by the Civil Court First Hall, on the 6th September 2013, in the records of the Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction number 1277/13 GC, in the names NRR Holdings Limited et vs Zaitsev Stanislav et, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondents Stanislav Zaitsev et, in terms of Article 187(3) et. of Chapter 12.
By means of an Application filed in the First Hall Civil Court, in the names ( Applicant) NRR Holdings Limited ( C 47260) vs NRR Entertainment Limited (C 47261) against (Respondent) Stanislav Zaitsev (holder of identity card number 47012A) and of Ukrainian Passport number EK 814472 and his wife Svitalana Zaitseva (holder of identity card number 47011A) on the 29 th August 2013, the applicant NRR Holdings Limited (C47260) and NRR Entertainment Limited ( C 47261) respectfully pleaded:
That the applicants in order to safeguard their credit hereunder mentioned against the respondent humbly ask thisHonourable Court, to order the issuing of a Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction against the respondent so that he be witheld from selling,alienating, transferring of disposing both inter vivos or by onerous or gratuitous title any property and in particular;
The vehicle number SSZ 888 in security of the rights of the applicant company for the payment of €300,000 representing amount of money belonging to the applicant companiesthat the respondent who was an official of the applicant companies illegally and abusively misappropriated.
Thus the applicant humbly asks that this Honourable Court issues a Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction against the respondent.
Credit:€300,000 ( three hundred thousand Ewro).
Title: --------------------
Sgd. Advocate Dr Josette Grech.
Confirmed before under oath after I read its contents and in the presenceof PL V. Rossignaud, without doc.
Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction where the demand exceeds €9317.49.
Republic of Malta
Tothe Court Marshall
Whereas the above application was filed and there recurr the necessary elements required according to law for the undermentioned orders;
And after doing this or if you encounter any difficulty in the execution of this warrant you are to inform this Court forthwith.
Given by the Civil Court First Hall with the witness ofthe Hon. Mr. Justice Gino Camilleri, LL.D., Doctor of Laws.
Applicant: 2/5, Tignè Place, Tignè Street, Sliema.
Respondents: Caravaggio Court, T4 B13, Tignè Point, Sliema.
(1) Awtorità ta’ Trasport ta’ Malta, Malta Transport Centre, Xatt l-Għassara, Marsa.
(2) Reġistratur tal-Artijiet, Lands Dept. West Street, Valletta.
(3) Direttur Regitru Pubbliku, Evans Building, Merchants Street, Valletta.
The Application Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction number 1277/13 GC, in the names NRR Holdings Limited et vs Stanislav Zaitsev et, has been put off to the 24th October 2013, at 9.00 a.m.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD.
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Bann for Curators
1597Republic of Malta
To The Marshall of the Court.
By means of a decree given by this Court, on the 23rd February 2010, following the request of MEM Developments Limited, it was ordered that Deputy Curators be chosen to representthe other unknown owners of the directum dominium of the emphyteutical concession relating to the property in the records of the Schedule of redemption of groundrent number 176/2010, in the names MEM Developments Limited vs Deputy Curators and in the relative and subsequent acts.
By means of a Schedule of deposit and redemption of groundrent, filed inthe First Hall Civil Court, in the names MEM Developments Limited (C47144) vs Deputy Curators appointed to represent the other unknown owners of the directum dominium of the empytheutical concession regarding the property hereunder described, on the 12th February 2010, the applicant company MEMDevelopmentsLimited (C 47144) respectfully pleaded:
That the applicant is the owner of the premises number ten (10) and eleven (11) in) Triq il-Ġnien ta’ Ta’ Xbiex, sometimes known as Gżira, subject to the annual and perpetual groundrent of (€5.57).
That this premises was acquired by the applicant by the company ‘John Ripard and Sons Limited’ (C40) by meansof a contract in the records of Notary Dr Pierre Cassar, 31st December 2009.
That the said company John Ripard and Son Limited (C40) had acquired the premises above mentioned by means of a contract records Notary George Bonello Dupuis dated8th May 1974, from John and Paul brothers Ripard.
That originally the property above described belonged to Reverend Father Francis Agius who had acquired it by means of a deed of partition in the records of Notary Dr Giuseppe Sammut, of the tenth 10th April 1949.
That the same Fr. Francis Agius, died on the 24th Jaqnuary 1958 and his inheritance devolved on his brothers/sisters, Erminia wife of Richard Camilleri, Sister Miriam(in the world known as Adelina), Eufrasina wife of Carmelo Micallef, Oliver, Salvina widow of John Zahra, and Mary wife of John Mercieca and Ermina of Joseph Calleja and in favour of the nephews Henry Lewis and Lilian brothers/sisters Agius.
That the said Paul andJohn Ripard had acquiredshares from the heirs above mentioned or their successors in title by means of two contracts published in the records of Notary Paul Pullicino dated 29th December 1996 and another of the 11th January 1968.
That thus the owners of the directum dominium are unknown to the interpellants.
That the interpellants wish to avail himself of the provisions of Aticle 1501 of the Civil Code and aredepositing the sum of €111.400 which represents the value of €5.57 capitalised at the rate of five per cent, in order to be freely withdrawn by who has the right according to law after the due receipt according to law is left.
Applicant: Apartment 3, ‘Villa Eugenie’ Dun Gaetano Mannarino, Birkirkara.
Notify: 1.Deputy Curators, Courts of Justice, Valletta.
2. Director Public Registry, Valletta (two services).
3. Land Registry, Casa Bolino, West Street, Valletta.
You are therefore ordered to affix an official copy of this bann at the entrance of this Superior Court and to summon whosoever wishes to act as curator to appear before this Registry within six days and by means of a minute to submit a declaration that he wishes so to act.
You are also ordered to inform each one that if he fails to make this declaration within the stipulated time, the Court will proceed to the selection of Curators of Office.
And after so acting or if you ahould encounter any difficulty in the execution of this bann, you are to inform forthwith this Court.
Given by the Civil Court First Hall,above mentioned, with the witness of the Hon. Mr Justice Raymond C. Pace, LL.D., Doctor of Laws.
Adv. Frank Portelli,LL.D.
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals