T.C
SUPREME
- law office
MAINLY NO: 2016/9880
DECISION NO: 2018/2363
DATE OF DECISION: 03.04.2018
BE PRESENT AT THE BANK LOSS OF THE BOND – WHERE THERE IS A LEGAL INTEREST OF THE BANK IN REQUESTING THE CANCELLATION OF THE BOND DUE TO LOSS
SUMMARY: The case is related to the request to cancel the bond due to the casualty, and the court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that there is no legal benefit to the plaintiff in writing. However, from the scope of the file, it is understood that the plaintiff bank takes over the canceled bonds with the turnover of collection and has the title of proxy holder. Since the collection turnover, the collection of the price of the promissory note and the related rights protection authorization to perform the transactions have a unique appearance of the precious document, the bank in the position of proxy holder has the right to request the return of the promissory note in the hands of a third party or to request its cancellation due to loss. In this case, the court must decide on the basis that the plaintiff has a legal interest in filing a lawsuit for the cancellation of a valuable document.
Malatya 4 in the case that is considered as non-adversarial.2015/485 given by the civil court and date 08/01/2016-examination by the plaintiff’s attorney filed the petition and appeal of Decision No. 2016/42 yargitayca that is given within the period of being understood, with longing for the judge to file a claim audit report edited by lefty melody rested, and again within the file petitions, pleadings, and trial proceedings and all documents are read and analyzed, after the nature of the business is discussed, considered:
The deputy plaintiff requested and sued to decide on the cancellation of the valuable documents, claiming that the bills issued to his client with the turnover of the collection were lost in their branches.
According to the scope of the entire file, the court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the lawsuits related to the cancellation of the precious document should be filed by the authorized holder, and that the plaintiff bank holding the securities with the turnover of the collection has no legal benefit.
The decision was appealed by the acting plaintiff.
The case is related to the request to cancel the bond due to loss, and the court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that there is no legal benefit to the plaintiff in writing. However, from the scope of the file, it is understood that the plaintiff bank takes over the canceled bonds with the turnover of collection and has the title of proxy holder. Since the collection turnover, the collection of the price of the promissory note and the related rights protection authorization to perform the transactions have a unique appearance of the precious document, the bank in the position of proxy holder has the right to request the return of the promissory note in the hands of a third party or to request its cancellation due to loss. In this case, the court should have decided that the plaintiff has a legal interest in filing a lawsuit for the cancellation of a valuable document, while it was not correct to decide to dismiss the case in writing, the decision had to be overturned.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons described above, it was unanimously decided on 03/04/2018 that the decision would be OVERTURNED for the benefit of the plaintiff by accepting the appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney, and that the advance appeal fee he paid would be returned to the appellant at his request.
