T.C. SUPREME
11.law office
Principal: 2004/5892
Decision: 2005/3009
Decision Date: 29.03.2005
Abstract: the plaintiff is a Czech kashidist and the case for cancellation of the check filed must be rejected.
(6762 P. K. m. 669, 730)
Case: Aydin First Instance in the case decried between the parties 1. 15.12.2003 date and 2003/578 – 2003/1387 decision given by the court of law was requested by the acting plaintiff and it was understood that the appeal petition was issued within the period, the examination Judge for the case file said C. after listening to the report organized by and again reading the petition documents, hearing minutes and all documents in the file, the work was discussed and considered:
Decision: attorney of the plaintiff, the check that his client wrote to the bearer is 5,000,000,000.- Sedat Ö by writing TL price.he demanded and sued for the cancellation of the check, claiming that he had prepared it for submission but had lost it, and that the check would be damaged in the event of submission.
His attorney, who participated in the case, argued that his client was the holder of the cheque subject to the case, and that he was a good holder because he had no legal relationship with the plaintiff, which he passed to him through endorsement, and asked for a decision to dismiss the case.
According to the claim, intervention petition and collected evidence, the court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the check subject to the case was discovered to the bearer, intervened with endorsement, and there was no valid evidence about the disappearance claim.
Article of the Turkish commercial code and Article 669 of the fourth article of the same law 730/20 to send the articles because of the waste that will be opened according to cancel a cheque in case the nature of the work and should be opened as it will cause hasimsiz as the legal consequences, in this case due to the loss of the cheque and pregnant is granted the right to file a suit for cancellation of the beneficiary, based on the statutory provisions of the drawer and is not entitled to file a suit for cancellation.
In a concrete case, the plaintiff is a Czech discoverer, and in accordance with the above-mentioned principles, the decision to reject the case on different grounds was not considered correct, H.U.M.K. according to the last article 438/nun, the court’s justification was changed and the provision that was correct as a result had to be upheld on the grounds described.
Conclusion: for the reasons described above, it was unanimously decided on 29.03.2005 to reject the appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney and to approve the provision with the reasons described, to take the following balance 1.10 YTL appeal application fee from the appellant.
