Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 20,321 of 27th December 2019

ARB/C070/2019 – NEW FREEZING ORDER

IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a decree dated 20th December, 2019, given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry (Magistrate Dr Neville Camilleri, LLD). Compilation number 741/2019 in the case:

The Police

(Inspector Jonathan Cassar)

Versus

DEPTY NAVAL, electrician, 35 years, son of Vinod Kumar and Janak Dulari, born in Jalhandar, Punjab, India, on the 18th October, 1984, residing at 92B, Jacal, Fl2, Triq San Gwann Battista, Tas-Sliema, and holder of Indian passport bearing number R0744827 and Maltese identity card bearing number 220435A.

ORDERED the attachment in the hands of third parties in general of all moneys and other movable or immovable property due to or pertaining or belonging to DEPTY NAVAL and prohibits the said accused from transferring, pledging, hypothecating or otherwise disposing of any movable or immovable property, and this according to Section 22A of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 101 of the Laws of Malta and Section 23A of the Criminal Code, Cap. 9 of the Laws of Malta.

The Court AUTHORISED the said accused to receive the amount authorised by law which is thirteen thousand, nine hundred and seventy six euro and twenty-four cents (€13,976.24) on an annual basis provided that every financial entity is ordered to present a note by which it informs the Court in which account or from which account these moneys are taken or the accused themselves may indicate to the Court from which account they are perceiving the moneys indicated.

Any person who acts in contravention of the court order mentioned in Section 22A and Section 23A referred to above shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine (multa) not exceeding eleven thousand and six hundred and forty-six euro and eighty-seven cents (€11,646.87), or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twelve months, or to both such fine and imprisonment.

Any transfer or other disposal of any property made in contravention of the said Court order shall be null and without effect at law.

The Director, Asset Recovery Bureau

On behalf of the Registry of the Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction (Malta)

ARB/C071/2019 – NEW FREEZING ORDER

IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a decree dated 20th December 2019 given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry (Magistrate Dr Doreen Clarke, LLD). Compilation Number 729/2019 in the case:

The Police

(Inspector Jonathan Cassar)

Versus

GIORGI KHELADZE, taxi driver, 29 years, son of David and Manana née Mokhevishvili, born in Georgia on the 7th May, 1990, residing at 189, Flt 3, Rose Apt, Vjal l-Independenza, Mosta, and holder of Georgian passport bearing number 10BA59190.

ORDERED the attachment in the hands of third parties in general of all moneys and other movable or immovable property due to or pertaining or belonging to GIORGI KHELADZE and prohibits the said accused from transferring, pledging, hypothecating or otherwise disposing of any movable or immovable property, and this according to Section 22A of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 101 of the Laws of Malta and Section 23A of the Criminal Code, Cap. 9 of the Laws of Malta.

The Court AUTHORISED the said accused to receive the amount authorized by law that does not exceed thirteen thousand, nine hundred and seventy-six Euro and twenty-four cents (€13,976.24) per year, after the accused indicates with a note from where they are perceiving this money.

Any person who acts in contravention of the court order mentioned in Section 22A and Section 23A referred to above shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine (multa) not exceeding eleven thousand and six hundred and forty-six Euro and eighty-seven cents (€11,646.87), or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twelve months, or to both such fine and imprisonment.

Any transfer or other disposal of any property made in contravention of the said Court order shall be null and without effect at law.

The Director, Asset Recovery Bureau

On behalf of the Registry of the Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction (Malta)

By means of a decree givcen, by the First Hall Civil Court (AF) on the 17th December, 2019, in the records of the Sworn Application, in the names Gastone Real Estate Ltd (C 76546) vs Flowers Ltd, Application Number 540/2019 (AF) the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondents and namely Gastone Real Estate Limited (C 76546) and Constat Asset Management Limited, in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

By means of a Sworn Application, filed, in the First Hall Civil Court, in the names Gastone Real Estate Limited (C 76546) et vs Flowers Limited (C 84995) on the 4th November, 2019, the applicant Flowers Limited (C 84995) wishes to avail itself of the right given to it in terms of Article 396 et sequitur of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta and in view of that brought forward in the application prays this Honourable Court;

1. To declare that the agreement dated 20th February, 2018, and that dated 13th September, 2018, between Flowers Ltd and the reconvened plaintiffs or either of them are no longer in force and are deprived of any legal effect and thus the parties reverted to their prior status,

2. Order the reconvened plaintiffs or either of them to refund the amount of six hundred thousand euro (€600,000) paid by the company Flowers Ltd, on the 7th September, 2018, and uphold the other demands in the application, amongst which the payment of interest at the commercial rate till the effective payment.

The Sworn Application in the names Gastone Real Estate Ltd vs Flowers Ltd, Application number 540/2019 (AF) has been deferred for hearing to the 8th January, 2020, at 9.30 a.m.

Applicant: Flowres Ltd (C 84995), 26, Triq il-Feniċi, Mosta

Respondents:

1) Gastone Real Estate Limited, 123,Triq Manwel Dimech, Tas-Sliema

2) Constat Asset Management Limited, 123, Triq Manwel Dimech, Tas-Sliema

Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By decree given by the Civil Court, First Hall on the 23rd December, 2019, on the application of E. Grech Cristal Bath Limited (C13298), Thursday, 20th February, 2020, at eleven in the morning (11.00 a.m.), has been fixed for the Sale by Auction to be held in Room number 78, nearby the Courts Archives, Level -1, Courts of Justice, Triq ir-Repubblika, Valletta, of the following property:

Tenement built on four levels numbered one hundred and fourty nine (149) previously numbered as one hundred and fifty five (155) in Triq San Bastjan, Ħal Qormi, where presently the ground floor is connected with third party property and is valued at four hundred and fifty thousand euro (€450,000).

The said tenement is the property of Grech's Limited (C 1863).

N.B. The said tenement will be sold as described in the acts of judicial sales number 6/2018.

Gaetana Aquilina

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given, by the Court of Appeal, on the 3rd December, 2019, in the records of the Application, in the names DIS Equipment Limited vs Paul Muscat noe, Application Number 15/18, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent, the company DIS Equipment Rental Ltd, in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

That by means of an Appeal Application, filed, by Paul Muscat, Following the Arbitration Award with number 3278/2012, Decided on the 15th November, 2017, by the Maltese Arbitration Centre presided by the Hon. Judge Emeritus Dr Joseph David Camilleri, in the names DIS Equipment Rental Limited (C 45248) vs Paul Muscat in the name and in representation of 'Confirma Joint Venture' and 'Caravaggio Joint Venture' and the company 'Kooperativa Recoop – The Restoration and Conservation Co-operative Limited) (Cooperative Company Number 81) on the 16th February, 2018, the applicant Paul Muscat in the name and in representation of 'Confirma Joint Venture' and 'Caravaggio Joint Venture and the company Kooperativa Recoop – The Restoration and Conservation Co-operative Limited) (Cooperative Company Number 81) the applicant respectfully prayed,

Notice of Arbitration of the respondent plaintiff company and the note by means of which the demand was reduced.

1. That what was being demanded by the plaintiff company (respondent in these procedures and later on in this application known as the respondent plaintiff) by means of a Notice of Arbitration ,filed, on the 8th October, 2012, was that the Arbitrator condemn the defendant nomine (appellant in these procedures and later in this application known as the appellant defendant nomine)to pay it the sum of two hundred seventy six thousand one hundred and six euro and nine cents (€276,106.09) representing balance of price of services related with scaffolding works in connection with the restoration of the Birgu Landfront Fortifications, which works were made on the basis of a contract signed bewtween the parties on the 21st December, 2011.

2. That the respondent plaintiff asked also for the interests according to law and the costs.

3. That on the 29th March, 2016, namely three and a half years after the presentation of the notice of arbitration the respondent plaintiff reduced the demand to the sum of two hundred forty eight thousand one hundred and six euro and nine cents (€248,106.09).

Pleas of the appellant defendant nomine

4. … omissis …

Counterclaim of the appellant Defendant nomine

5. That by means of his Counterclaim, the appellant defendant nomine limitedly on behalf and in representation of 'Confirma Joint Venture' and 'Caravaggio Joint Venture' asked the Honourable Arbitrator as follows;

… omissis …

Defence to the Counerclaim

6. That by means of the Statement of defence to a counter-claim the respondent plaintiff pleaded as follows;

… omissis …

Arbitration Decision of the 15th November, 2017

7. That by means of an arbitration award given on the 15th November, 2017, the Arbitrator decided as follows:

1. In the first place with the reference to the applicant's demand indicated in the statement of claim (which claim was reduced during the proceedings of arbitration) uphold the same limitedly for the sum of € 174,590.93,

ii. In the second place order that on the sum liquidated there run the interests at the rate of 8% till the effective payament.

iii. In the third place the costs be paid as stated in the award.

Notification of the Arbitratiomn Award

8. That the appellant defendant nomine was notified with the arbitration award on the 1st February, 2018.

Grievances

9. That the appellant defendant nomine feels aggrieved by the decision premised and is thus humbly filing an appeal from the same decision before the Honourable Court of Appeal in terms of Art 69 A (2) (b) and Art 70(a) of Cap 387 of the Laws of Malta;

10. That the grievances are clear and manifest and consist in the fact that the appellant defendant nomine does not agree with the evaluation of the points of law made by the Arbitrator.

Appeal on a Point of Law

11. That in terms of Art 70(B) (1) of Cap 387 of the Laws of Malta an appeal under Article 70A is to identify the point of law on which a decision is to be taken and is to specify the meaning that the applicant alledges is a correct meaning of the point of law identified'.

12. That the points of law in question are the following:

… omissis …

Point of law number one-Decision regarding the interlocutory decree.

13. That on this point of law in the first place it is stated from the beginning that the appellant defendant nomine is not at this stage, appealing from an interlocutory decree given at the arbitration stage.

14. That in brief the crux of all the dispute has its roots in the gross intransigence shown by the respondent plaintiff during the course of the arbitration in order to commence to bring forward its proof.

… omissis …

15. That it is good to state that in its original form (Att 11 of 2006) Cap 387 of the Laws of Malta, did not refer to tinterlocutory decrees. These were introduced the first time by means of Act XXX1 of 2002 which introduced Article 71B (today amended) of which subarticle 3 read as follows;

16. That subsequently and by means of Act IX of 2004 the Legislator introduced Article 44(10) which reads as follows;

… omissis …

18. That it is clear thus that the intention of the legislator in so far as appeals from interlocutory decrees given by the Arbitrator in the Malta Arbitration Centre was clear;

i. Interlocutory Decrees cannot be appealed during the Arbitration proceedings;

ii. Interlocutory Decrees can be appealed after the arbitration is decided always if it satisfies the requisites of Art 70A (3).

19. That thus it is very clear that the interlocutory decree of the Arbitrator of the 13th August, 2015, to revoke contrario imperio his interlocutory decree of the 3rd April, 2014, was null and without effect since it goes against the dispositions mentioned of Cap. 387.

… omissis …

21. That with all respect the respondent defendant nomine does not agree at all with the position of the Arbitrator that this dispute refers to rigid procedural formalism.

22. That although the appellant defendant nomine agrees that as far as it is possible the acts are to be safeguarded and the substance is to prevail on the rigid procedure however this principle is not absolute and is not open ended.

… omissis …

Point of Law number two – The question of equity vs the principle pacta sunt servanda as regards the proviso of clause 6.1 of the contract.

27. That without prejudice to the above as a conclusion to Section C of his Decision, the Arbitrator declared the following,'the applicant basically provided and set up the scaffoldings which it was oibliged to set up on the sites in question. Although it resulted that it did not do this within the deadlines specfified in Clause 3, however it was not basically late in the sense of Clause 6.1.2.

28. That the Arbitrator reached this conclusion after a wrong application and a wrong interpretation of Art 993 of Cap 16 of the Laws of Malta, he decided that Architect Joseph Zammit engaged by the parties under Clause number 6.1 in order to determine the existence or not of 'inclement weather' proceeded with a rigid formalistic approach'.

… omissis …

30. That the Arbitrator went further then this and openly declared that the way the Architect proceeded was not impartial and his work could not be approved by the Arbitrator.

… omissis …

31.i. That the respondent defendant nomine identified various reasons why the reasoning of the Arbitrator does not hold and lead him to make a wrong interpretation and application of Article 993 above mentioned.

… omissis …

iii. Finally as regards equity whilst it is true that contracts are to be interpreted equitably and in good faith this does not mean however that every formality of procedure especially if this expressly agreed between the parties before hand is to be thrown overboard.

… omissis …

34. That thus without prejudice and in secondment of the appeal on the point of law mentioned in paragraph 26 of this application it is the opinion of the defendant nomine that this Honourabe Court with the application of Art 71(3) of Cap 387 after applyting the correct interpretation of the point of law that the contract is to prevail on the so called equity (or lack of formalism) is to vary the decision appealed as stated in this application.

Point of law number Three-Lack of juridical relationship between the respondent plaintiff and 'Recoop' – The Restoration and Conservation Coop Ltd.

35. That this point of law was decided by the Arbitrator under the Section of the Decide.

… omissis …

37. That in the humble opinion of the appellant defendant nomine here it is a case of interpretation of a point of law which is clearly mistaken.In order to reach his conclusion the Arbitrator relied on three separate factors.

38. That the appellant defendant nomine points out that substantially points out that all that is stated in these three factors above listed is correct. What was misataken was their application to the case de quo by the Arbitrator which application lead the Arbitrator to reach a wrong conclusion that the Recoop Cooperative has a juridical relationship with the respondent plaintiff.

… omissis …

42. That it is finally stated that as a state of fact the only contract of works exhibited in the records which bears the signature both of the 'Employer' as well as the 'Contractor' is that exhibited with the Statement of Claim (marked Doc. A) namely the contract of the 21st December, 2011, which contract was indicated by the plaintiff company in its statement of claim as 'the contract out of which the defined legal relationship in respect to which the dispute arises'.

43. That thus it is the opinion of the appellant defendant nomine that this agreement is a res inter alios acta, aliis nec nocet nec prodest, as regards the Cooperative Recoop, and once this is not part of the agreement on which the present cause is based.

44. That it is also the opinion of the appellant defendant nomine that this same point of law satisfies the requisites of Art 70 A (3) of Cap 387 of the Laws of Malta since;

… omissis …

45. That thus without prejudice and in secondment to the appeal on the points of law mentioned in paragraphs 26 and 34 of this application, it is the opinion of the defendant nomine that in case that this Honourable Court does not accept its appeal on the point of law mentioned before this Honourable Court, with the application of Art 71(3) of Cap. 387 after applying the correct interpretation of a point of law that there does not exist a juridical relationship between the plaintiff and the Cooperative Recoop, is to vary the appealed decision by freeing the Recoop Cooperative from the observance of the judgement and for the rest confirm the decision of the Arbitrator as requested in this application.

The Application in the names DIS Equipment Rental Limited vs Paul Muscat noe, Application number 15/18, has been deferred for hearing to the 17th January, 2020, at 10.30 a.m.

Notify: DIS Equipment Rental Ltd, KW 38, Kordin Industrial Estate, Paola PLA 3000

Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals