Mur Lura
Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 18,995 of the 30th November 2012
01/01/2012
Notice 1993
1993By means of a decree given, by the Civil Court First Hall, on the 23rd October 2012, in the records of the Application Number 842/11 SM, Adv. Dr Simon Cachia noe vs Ancams Limited, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the company Ancams Limited, in terms ofArticle 187(3) of Cap. 12.
By means of a Judgement of the First Hall Civil Court, given on the 24th April 2012, in the cause Application Number 842/2011SM, in the names Advocate Dr Simon Cachia (I.D. Number 434281M) as special mandatary of the absent company A.G. Distribuziobne S.r.L. a company registered in Sicily, Italy, in the name and in representation of the same vs Ancams Limited (C -19060),
The Court;
Having seen the original application dated 30 th August 2011, in virtue of which the applicants nomine briefly informed the Court, with the following:
1. That on the 5th February 2009, The Tribunal of Modica, Sicily had decreed and condemned the respondent company Ancams Limited, to pay the applicant company A.G. Distribuzione S.r.L. hereby represented by the applicant nomine the sum of (€23,868.19) with interests and the relative taxes thereby indicated, besides the amount of (€680.25) costs in terms of the same.
2. That the opposition to the same judgement on the part of the respondent company above indicated was also rejected by the Tribunal, with costs.
3. That the relative certificates regarding the jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgements of a civil and commercial nature were duly released according to the appropriate Ewropean regulations;
4. That thus the applicant company wishes to execute the decisions above referred to within the Maltese jurisdiction whereby the respondent company is registered and since in terms of regulation 41 of the Council Regulations 44/2001 these are still at this stage they be declared immediately executable following the execution of the required formalities.
That consequently the applicant nomine above indicatedasks this Court;
1. To declare that the decision above referred dated 5th February 2009 and the consequential judgement also referred dated 13th December 2010, are executable and enforceable in Maltese jurisdiction;
2. With costs, against the respondent company.
...omissis...
This Court has no alternative that after the requisites required by the Regluations above referred;
1. Declare that the decisions of the Tribunal of Modica dated 5th February 2009 and 13th December 2010, are executable and enforceable within the Maltese jurisdiction;
2. With costs against the respondent company Ancams Limited (C 19060).
3. That following the same order that the declaration of execution above mentioned shall be served on the respondent company Ancams Limited, above indicated together with the other relative acts.
Notify: Company Ancams Limited, Director Carmen Micallef, Carmen House, Triq il-Maħlut, Tal-Mirakli, Lija.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LL.D.
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1994
1994IT IS hereby notified that in virtue of a decree given on the 14th November 2012, the Court of Magistrates (Gozo), in its Superior Jurisdiction, in the records of judicial sale 17/2008 in re “Gozo Village Holidays Ltd. et vs Michael Cremona” ordered the publication of the hereunder reproduced extract for the purpose of service in terms of section 187(3) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta to Michael Cremona (I.D.: 52559G);
On the 11th October 2012 the company Gozo Village Holidays Ltd. filed an application in the records of the above mentioned judicial sale wherein it requested the Court to order architect Gordon Vella to review the plan prepared by himself marked as doc. GV1, and this by including in it the property as shown in document GP1 exhibited with the same application.
And by a decree dated 16th October 2012, the Court ordered notification to the other interested parties with four days to present their reply.
Superior Jurisdiction
Jaclyn Magrin
Deputy Registrar
Notice 1995
1995By means of a decree given by the First Hall Civil Court on the 8th October 2012, in the records of the Sworn Application, in the names Farrugia Jennifer et vs Steer Chetham Roy et, Sworn Application number 783/12 FS, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondents, in terms of Article 187(3) of Cap. 12.
By means of a Sworn Application filed in the First Hall Civil Court, in the names Jennifer Farrugia (I.D. 179063M) Paul Degaetano (ID 505462M) Josienne wife of Paul Degaetano (I.D. 222663M) and Raymond Steer Chetham (I.D. 218359M) in their own name and in the name of the irregular partnership with the name ‘RS Partners’ as well as Jane wife of Ray Steer Chetham (I.D. 88956M) and Eugenio husband of Jennifer Farugia (I.D. 15362M) for any interest they may have vs Roy Steer Chetham, (I.D. 187193M) and Carla Steer Chetham wife of the same Roy Steer Chetham (I.D. 187193M) and Carla Steer Chetham wife of the same Roy (I.D. 3566M) for any interest she may have, on the 3rd August 2012, the applicants asked the defendants to state why this Honourable Court should not:
1. Declare the defendants responsible for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs as a consequence of negligence, carlessness, lack of ability and fraudolent behaviour of the defendant, liquidate if necessary by the appointment of referees the damages suffered by the plaintiffs and uphold the other demands in the application.
The defendants are summoned so that a reference to their evidence is made.
Plaintiffs: Ray Steer Chetham et, ‘ Dsalon’
Triq il-Qantar, (kantuniera ma’ Triq il-Keffa,
Tal-Ibraġ.
Defendants: 1. Roy Steer Chetham
Flat 10, Binja Għenieq, Flats Indipendenza,
Triq il-Ħamrija,
Naxxar.
2. Carla Steer Chetham,
Flat 10, Binja Għenieq, Flats Indipendenza,
Triq il-Ħamrija,
Naxxar.
The Sworn Application in the names Farrugia Jennifer et vs Steer Chetam Roy et, application number 783/2012 FS, has been put off for hearing on the 14th January 2013, at 9.15 a.m.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LL.D.
For the Registrar , Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1996
1996NOTICE
CIVIL COURT – FIRST HALL
Whereas Josephine Galea (I.D. 820348M) as a special attorney of Mary Anne (I.D. 440754M) and Kevin Paul (English Passport no. 303203378) spouses Pilner filed an application under oath (No. 1141/2012 JA) demanding CORRECTION in their ACT OF MARRIAGE number 1667/2011 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,
Mario Debono
For Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1997
1997By means of a decree given, on the 10th July 2012, by the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Application Number 1132/2006 JA, in the names J.V. & S Developments Limited vs Director Civil Courts and Tribunals, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of the respondents Joseph and Carmen Pace, in terms of Article 187(3) Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.
By means of an application of Appeal filed in the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Application1132/2006 JA, J.V.& S Developments Limited (C 28790) vs the Director, Civil Courts and Tribunals, Registrar of Courts, Civil Courts and Tribunals, Scala Developments Company Limited (C 18453) and Joseph and Carmen spouses Pace, on the 27th January 2012, the applicant company J.V. & S. Developments Limited (C 28790) respectfully pleaded:
1. That by means of a sworn application the appellant plaintiff company, by means of a contract of the 31st July 2006, in the records of Notary Joseph Henry Saydon, acquired one-fifth undivided share of the property held in common in the block of appartments 37, Tignè Seafront, Sliema.
2. That the appartment Number 1, in the block 37, Tigne Seafront, Sliema, was subject to the procedure of judicial sale number 24/2003, before this Honourable Court.
3. That the same judicial sale number 24/2003, was notified to the public by means of legal notices in the local newspapers and in the Government Gazette ...omissis... that in the notices mentioned there is expressly explained how such appartmentis to be sold and in what such sale consists.
4. ...omissis...
5. ...omissis...
6. ...omissis...
7. That thenote of adjudication was mistaken and this as it was not limited only to the appartment internally marked number 1, inside the block 37, Tignè Seafront, Sliema, but included also one fifth undivided of the parts held in common, which according to the same legal notices, were never included in the judicial sales.
8. ...omissis...
9. ...omissis...
10. That the same Director Civil Court and Tribunals and Registrar of Courts, Civil Courts and Tribunals, rejected this demand on the 14th November 2006 and thus this cause had to be made whereby the appellant asked the First Hall Civil Court,
i. To declare and decide that the appellant plaintiff company, is the owner of one fifth undivided share of the airspace of the roof and of the common parts in the block of appartment 37, Tignè Seafront, Sliema, purchased by means of a contract of the 31st July 2006, in the records of Notary Joseph H. Saydon.
ii. To declare and decide that consequently the judicial sale number 24/2003, did not include the one fifth undivided part of the property of the airspace and of the common parts and the washroom on the roof.
iii. To order the Director, Civil Courts and Tribunals and the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals, to carry out the necessary corrections in the note of adjudication of the 22nd November 2005, in the same records of judicial sale 24/2003 and order the Director Public Registry to register the correction so that the note of enrolment regarding the said act of adjudicationin the same records of the judicial sale 24/2003, does not continue to show that one-fifth undivided share of the airspace is the property of the company Scala Developments Company Limited (C 18453).
11. That by means of a sworn application Scala Developments Company Limited, pleaded the lack of interest of the applicant company, since its interestemerges from the litigious right of the spouses Pace and added that the proceduresused in the judicialwere all correct.
12. That by means of another sworn application the spouses Joseph and Carmen Pace, pleaded that they are no longer the owners of the property in question, since they sold their undivided share to the plaintiff appellants.
13. The Director Civil Courts and Tribunals by means of another sworn application pleaded in his reply:
That by means of a judgement of the First Hall Civil Court, in the cause in the names premised given on the 9th January 2012, the honourable First Hall Civil Court, decidedthat who buys and acquires by means of a judicial sale is acquiring that indicated in the original application of the same judicial sale and the entity of the property does not depend on the description indicated by the technical referee who is appointed.
That the plaintiff appellant company, felt aggrieved by this judgement and in thus humbly filing this appeal before this Honourable Court of Appeal.
That the grievances are clear and manifest and consist in the following:
1. That the immovable property which is sold by judicial sale is to be evaluated by a technical Referee and its value determined in the sale of the object as proposed by Article 313 of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.
2. That it is the dutyof the defendant Registrar of Courts, to publish in the Government Gazette the object which was to be sold with a description of the same.
3. That the Registrar of Courts, published the notices and declared that the property which shall be sold Flat 1, 37, Tigne Seafront, Sliema, is being sold as described by AIC Joseph Ellul Vincenti, in his report sworn on the 12th October 2001.
4. ...omissis...
5. That it results most clearly that in the valuation and the description of the sale of the apartments in questionthe one-fifth undivided share of the common parts was not being sold.
6. That in the sale in question as described in the report of the Referee the co- ownership of the common parts could not be sold but the right of their use.
7. That in the records of the Judicial Sale what is being sold is not what is being asked to be sold in the original application, but what the public was notified with by the Registrar of Courtsfollowing a valuation and description of the Architect so appointed.
8. That thus when the public was notified, with the date, time and place of the sale accordingto the notice published by the same Registrar, according to a report made by the Referee, the Registrar was obliged to enrol in the Public Registry, nothing more that what appeared in the Government Gazette.
9. ...omissis...
10. That the plaintiff appellant became an owner of the one fifth undivided share of the airspace of the block of buildings in question of the common parts and thus consequently this cause had to be madefor the correction of the note of enrolment.
11....omissis...
12.....omissis...
13....omissis...
14....omissis...
15. That consequently what the Registrar of Courtssent to the Director Public Registry, following the judicial sale mentioned did not reflect what was sold according to the notices in the Government Gazetteand what was described in the report of Architect Joseph Ellul Vincenti, since the same Registrar of Courts , was of the opinionthat he had to inform the Director Public Registrythat one fifth undivided share of the common parts of the block 37, Tigne Seafront, Sliema, was sold, when effectively it was only the enjoyment of the airspace and the common parts of the same block were sold.
16....omissis...
17....omissis...
18. That thus when the respondent company Scala Developments Company Limited, acquired the above mentioned appartment by means of judicial sale 24/2004, it acquired only the appartment held solely by it and did not acquire an undivided share of the common parts of the same block.
19....omissis...
20....omissis...
21....omissis...
22. That the same respondent spouses, in an application, filed by them in the same records of judicial sale 24/2003, tried to bring to the notice of this Honourable Court First Hall Civil Court, that Architect Ellul Vincenti, failed in his reportto take into considerationthat the airspace was going to be sold together with the appartment and the valuationdid not include the parts held in common by the co-owners of the block.
23....omissis...
24....omissis...
25....omissis...
26. That the spouses Pace had every right to transfer the property in question and this because such property neverformed part of the judicial sale 24/2003.
27....omissis...
28....omissis...
29....omissis...
30. That thus the spouses Pace by means of the present judicial sale never transfered the property in question by means of the judicial sale, and thus they had every right to be signatories on the contract of the 31st July 2006, wherebythey transferred as owners the said property to the companyand thus the said property changed the owner by the above mentioned contract and not in the judicial sale 24/2003.
31....omissis...
32. That the grievance of the appellant company, consists in the factthat although the proof and all the facts deduced amongst which the legal notices and the price of the valuation clearly show that the judicial sale 24/2003 included only the appartment, the Court failed to appreciate such facts.
33. ...omissis...
34.That in thiscase and in any other cause the Court, always ditinguished the right of enjoyment of property so that this distinction has tocontinue being done according to our jurisprudence and that they are not equivalentto each other when it is clear and manifest that what was sold was the right of use of the common parts and not the right of property.
That such considerations are very relevant to the present cause.
35....omissis...
36....omissis...
Thus the appellant plaintiff company, whilst referring to all the proof brought forward in the First Instance and reserves to bring forward all the proof permitted by law humbly asks this Honourable Court of Appeal, to revoke the judgement of the 9th January 2012, in the cause in the names above premised decided by the Honourable First Hall Civil Court, as demanded in this application and rejects all the pleas of the respondent defendants. With costs of both instances against the respondent defendants.
Appellant: JB’S Bureau, 95, Triq is-Sirk, Swieqi.
Respondents: 1....omissis...
2....omissis...
3. Joseph and Carmen Pace-Fawwara
Buildings, Triq Ġużè Fava, Sliema.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LL.D.
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1998
1998NOTICE
CIVIL COURT – FIRST HALL
Whereas John Paul (I.D. 550079M) filed an application under oath (No. 1133/2012 JA) demanding CORRECTION in his ACT OF BIRTH number 5500/1979 and in that of his daughter Paula Sammut number 497/2005 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,
Mario Debono
For Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals