SUPREME COURT 13. law office
2016/22543 E.
2017/5094 K.
COURT OF First Instance: Court of First Instance
At the end of the trial of the case for the cancellation of the appeal between the parties, the file was examined and considered as necessary after the plaintiff’s lawyer appealed the decision to dismiss the case for reasons written in the decision within the period of dec.
decision
The plaintiff asked the defendant to cancel the appeal and decide on compensation for denial, claiming that he is a creditor of 4.691,15 TL with the invoice dated 29/10/2013, 6.565,00 TL with the invoice dated 18/11/2013, and that the enforcement proceedings initiated for the purpose of collecting these receivables have stopped with the defendant’s unfair objection.
The defendant has requested the dismissal of the case.
The court decided to reject the request for cancellation of the appeal from the point of view of the duration, since it was understood that the case was not filed within a 1-year period; the decision was appealed by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff has requested the cancellation of the appeal against the follow-up initiated by the claimant for the purpose of collecting the receivables based on the invoice with the case at hand. The court decided to dismiss the case on 05/08/2014 and within the period of 06/08/2014 when the debtor objected to the debt, the pursuit was stopped, the decision to stop the pursuit was notified to the creditor’s attorney on 01/09/2014, the case was filed on 09/11/2015 and after the expiration of a 1-year demerit period. In the review of the execution file; it is understood that the petition to appeal the debt and the decision to stop the proceedings were personally notified to the plaintiff/creditor … on 01.09.2014, but the enforcement proceedings were initiated by the plaintiff’s lawyer. 11 of the notification law. according to the first paragraph of the article, notification is made to the proxy in cases that are followed by proxy. Therefore, it is against the law to make a notification to the asile in a job followed by a proxy. In the face of the fact that the enforcement proceedings related to the case have been initiated and are being followed by the plaintiff creditor’s attorney, the notification made to the plaintiff’s family is invalid and cannot be taken as a basis for determining the 1-year period of entitlement reduction. In that case, a decision should be made by the Court according to the result that will be obtained as a result of the examination, which will be entered into the basis of the work, taking into account that the notification made to the plaintiff is invalid and filed during the trial, while it is contrary to the procedure and law that it was decided in writing with the opposite opinion, and it requires a violation.
CONCLUSION: It was unanimously decided on 27/04/2017 that the judgment would be OVERTURNED for the plaintiff’s benefit for the reasons described above, that the fee of TL 29.20 received in advance would be refunded upon request, and that the decision correction path would be closed in accordance with Article 440/III-1 of the CMB.
SUPREME COURT 12. law office
2016/8792 E.
2016/26089 K.
COURT : Executive Civil Court
Temyizen above within hours of the court’s decision, the date and number upon request by the borrower in writing this audit work-related files from the scene have been sent to the apartment and rested for the audit report to file a claim held by a judge, and all the documents in the file is read and analysed, after it was thought that the nature of the business discussed:
The attachment bond for the creditor against the debtor based on a negotiable instrument you follow through when they start a debtor company by the legal five-day period of execution within the application to the court, the bond before the maturity date or the price paid for the voucher reimbursement to creditors in relation to it and the debt is any debt that has claimed an Where presented and contested by the court, the payment receipt to the signature on file as a document presented by the defendant were denied payment, it is understood that it was decided to reject the appeal on the grounds that the issue of whether the signature is a product of the defendant’s hand requires a trial.
Article 169/a-1 of the IIK. in accordance with the article, if the absence of the debt or its redemption or destruction is proved by an official or signed document, an appeal is accepted by the court. On the other hand, according to the established case law of our Department, in order for it to be accepted that the submitted payment document is issued in relation to the debt subject to follow-up, it is necessary to clearly refer to the basis of follow-up in the document.
Article 169/a-3 of the IIK. in the article; “If the signature under the document submitted by the debtor is denied by the creditor, the judge of the enforcement court, if he believes that the signature belongs to the creditor as a result of the examination he will conduct in accordance with Article 68 / a, decides on the acceptance of the debtor’s appeal and sentences the creditor to a fine of ten percent of the value or amount of the document in question….” the provision has been included.
In a concrete case, by the creditor 15.000,00 TL TL bonds worth is initiated against the debtor based on 15/07/2015 13.000.00 follow through on the date of the appeal petition is presented in the appendix of the debt, and the creditor the payment receipt signed and dated on 06/06/2015; 24/4/2015 regulation dated 15/06/2015 payment dated 15.000.00-TL based on the year it was indicated that price had been paid, however, the creditor’s petition dated at the bottom with the signature of attorney of the creditor of the payment receipt 02/11/2015 in the hands of a signature is not asserted and the product have been denied.
October JUL 169/a-3, in this case, the original receipt of tediye submitted by the court in the annex to the borrower’s petition for action is obtained from the borrower. according to the procedure in Article 68 / a of the same Law, which must be applied by sending the article, the original document must be decided according to the result that will be formed by conducting an examination to determine whether the signature is a product of the creditor’s hand, while the provision in writing with incomplete examination is invalid.
CONCLUSION : The adoption of the debtor’s appeals and the court’s decision for the reasons written above are in accordance with Article 366 of the IIK and Article 428 of the IK. in accordance with the articles (ON ITS DETERIORATION), the refund of the fee received in advance upon request was decided unanimously on 26.12.2016, with the path of decision correction open within 10 days from the notification of the decision.
