Summary:
In a concrete case, a check dated 25.05.2010 by the creditor based on the attachment of Negotiable Instruments for drawing 25,000 enforcement proceedings started with the path to the borrower after submission of the check by entering turnover between the creditor in question, Did you follow up with fake endorsements, that is not the authorized cardholder, monitoring and demanded the cancellation of the court subpoenaed related to the creditor’s bank at the present time are not involved in the turnover in the Czech copy of the chain since it was decided to cancel this, it is noted that the trail from the direction of pull.
In the examination of the certified copy of the check on the basis of follow-up, the follow-up creditor M., to whom the first turnover belongs to the beneficiary, T. it is understood that the flour is included in the turnover range, the check is submitted to the bank during the term, its qualifications are full, and the creditor is the authorized holder.
In this case, the court’s written decision to accept the above legal regulation and the information on the original check by taking into account the evil eye, examining the photocopy of the summons from the bank in writing, rather than deciding to reject the complaint in terms of this check, is incorrect
T.C.
Supreme
General Assembly of Law
Base No:2014/-2060
Decision No:2014/976
K. Date:26.11.2014
At the end of the trial between the parties for the case of ”objection to enforcement proceedings”; Istanbul 11. dec. 05.04.2011 day, 2011/176 E – 2011/431 K, which was issued by the Executive Civil Court on the partial acceptance of the case, upon request of the deputies of the parties to examine the decision, the Supreme Court 12. 20.02.2012 Day of the Legal Department, 2011/19590 E. – With the decree No. 4158 K of 2012/2012;
“…1)REFUSAL of the debtor’s appeals in accordance with the claims and defenses of the parties, the information and documents contained in the file, and the grounds for the decision;
2) As for the creditor’s objections to the appeal:
Article 702 of the TCC. in its article, it is stipulated that ”a person who holds a check with a turnover that is capable of, even if the last turnover is a white turnover, will be considered a bona fide holder if his right is understood from separate and interconnected endorsements …”.
Again, it is possible to apply to the debtors of the application by skipping the quotas in the bills of exchange that have been submitted and have seen various endorsements and to refund the cost of the promissory note by collecting it. In this case, there is also no need to have a re-return endorsement signature on the promissory note.
The applicant who has a signature in the turnover line and holds the stock is considered the authorized bearer.
In a concrete case, based on a drawing by the creditor dated 25.05.2010 25,000 Negotiable Instruments started with the path to check the attachment for enforcement proceedings, the debtor in question by entering turnover between alacaklininibraz after the check, Did you follow up with fake endorsements, that is not the authorized cardholder, monitoring and demanded the cancellation of the court subpoenaed related to the creditor’s bank at the present time are not involved in the turnover in the Czech copy of the chain since it was decided to cancel this, it is noted that the trail from the direction of pull.
In the examination of the certified copy of the check on the basis of follow-up, the follow-up creditor M., to whom the first turnover belongs to the beneficiary, T. it is understood that the flour is included in the turnover range, the check is submitted to the bank during the term, its qualifications are full, and the creditor is the authorized holder.
In this case, the court’s decision in writing to accept the above legal regulation and the information on the original check by taking into account the evil eye, examining the photocopy of the summons from the bank in writing, rather than deciding to reject the complaint in terms of this check, is incorrect …”
the grounds were overturned and the file was returned to its place, but at the end of the retrial, the court resisted the previous decision.
THE APPELLANT: The defendant(creditor) acting
DECISION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF JURISPRUDENCE
After it was understood that the decision to resist was appealed during the examination by the General Assembly of the Law and the papers in the file were read, the requirement was discussed:
The case is related to the request for an appeal to the enforcement proceedings (objection to the debt) initiated by the way of foreclosure specific to foreign exchange notes.
The plaintiff(the borrower) acting; plaintiff attorney bills initiated with the petition with the way in pursuit of specific lien dated 05.05.2010 been bounced check to the bowl and pull bills as lost, dated 25.05.2010 in check by entering your search that had a turnover after the submission of the creditor, that is not the legitimate holder, drawer and endorser due to the lack of signatures on the checks that they are not in the qualification of foreign exchange, therefore follow-up and demand to cancel the decision has prosecuted.
As a result of the examination conducted by the court before the opening of the hearing, a photocopy of the cheque dated 25.05.2010 was brought from the bank at the time of submission, and in this document, the tracking creditor M.On the grounds that there is no turnover of T, and the photocopy available in the tracking file contains an intervening turnover, so the tracking creditor is not a legitimate holder in terms of this check, and the tracking in terms of this check should be canceled in accordance with Article 170 /a-2 of the IIC, a partial acceptance of the case was decided, and on the appeal of the party’s attorneys, the decision was deconstructed by the Special Department for the reasons described above.
The decision to resist was made by the Local Court by expanding the previous grounds, and the decision to resist was appealed by the defendant’s (creditor’s) deputy.
The dispute before the General Assembly of the Law; Whether there is a follow-up creditor’s turnover in the cheque dated 25.05.2010 is collected at the point where the defendant (creditor) is the authorized holder according to the conclusion to be reached here.
In particular, taking into account the information on the original check, the first turnover belongs to the beneficiary, the follow-up creditor, according to the mutual claims and defenses of the parties, the minutes and evidence in the dossier, the reasons for the decision to cancel, M.Since it is understood that T is included in the turnover range, the decision to break the Special Circle adopted by the General Assembly of the Law must be followed, while the decision to resist must be overturned, since resisting the previous decision is contrary to the procedure and law.
CONCLUSION: The decision of the defendant(creditor) to resist the adoption of appeals by his/ her attorney was adopted by the General Assembly of Law 30 of Law No. 6217 for the reasons shown in the decision of the Special Chamber to overturn the decision. article 429 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 1086, which is being applied with the reference to “Provisional article 3” added to the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100. According to the article, it was decided unanimously on 26.11.2014 that it would be OVERTURNED and, if requested, the advance fee for the appeal would be returned to the depositor.
