T.C.
Supreme
- law office
Base No:2014/12697
Decision No:2015/10020
K. Date:6.10.2015
Malatya 4 in the case between the parties. dec. Examination of the decision No. 2012/483-2013 dated 12/09/2013 issued by the Court of First Instance by the Court of Cassation The plaintiff’s deputy and fer of the company intervened Y.. S.. with P.. P.. it was requested by the deputy and it was understood that the appeal petition was filed within the time limit, but after the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file was heard and again the petition, appeals, trial minutes and all documents in the file were read and examined, the job was discussed and considered as necessary:
The plaintiff’s deputy stated that real estate No. 1270, which is the sole property of the client company, was sold illegally to the defendants and the defendant company, who were the board of directors and auditors of the period, at a low value, there was no money entry into the company’s safe in exchange for this sale, the company was actually emptied, a deed cancellation lawsuit was filed and filed by the partners in relation to the same real estate, the defendants M.. K.. and Y.. S..’s defendant signed the construction contract with the company, for your floor, 111 of the flats that was given to the defendant company, and the subject matter of the case of immovable property sold to a third party that is likely to be of good faith, citing the cancellation of registration of immovable property on behalf of undue the defendants, the plaintiff on behalf of the company to place liens on immovable property registration in the subject matter of the case, unsecured, regarding the possibility of selling real estate, for now has decided that it will be paid as compensation request to have 224.000 TL and prosecuted.
The defendants’ attorneys have asked for the case to be dismissed.
According to the court, the claim, the defense and the entire scope of the file, Article 341 of the TCC. according to the article on behalf of the company to be filed in the General Assembly of the company to be taken by the auditors of the case and a decision on this issue should be opened, or 1/10 of a concrete case the main shareholders to demand a decision of the General Assembly in the absence of capital, on the other hand, has not pending lawsuit the company’s auditors and, therefore, the plaintiffs ‘ pending does not have a license to open the case, also the agenda of the general meeting of the company on the date of 08.07.2000 8. the expropriation of real estate in the name of the company registered in in the article, amalgamate, abandoned road operations related to Real Estate, wills and shares to any persons or under conditions hissesiz Price, wholesale or piecemeal to sell, the sales price to get the ahzu hilt, the relevant land registry offices, land disposal by the General Assembly to the board of directors the authority given by the board of directors in the history of 18.04.2002 chairman of the management board on the same subject I.. He..6 of the general assembly meeting of the company’s board of directors dated 24.04.2003 on the sale transaction for which the company has been authorized individually and which is the subject of a lawsuit.on the other hand, Article 309 of the Turkish Commercial Code has become effective as a result of its issuance. it was decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the statute of limitations set out in the article has expired.
The decision of the plaintiff is made by the company’s deputy and the fer of the intervening Y.. S.. with P.. P.. he appealed.
1 – the case of the plaintiff the value of the assets of the company only for the period of the management board and supervisory board with members of the immovable sold to third parties, where, however, this money has entered into the company’s coffers, not the gain of the defendants, his real estate company’s legal, sales, and the superstition of the ages is based on the claim that, in the absence of registration of the deed of requesting the cancellation and compensation, and the next ferry during the trial, the plaintiff who wants to contribute by interfering S.. P..this request has been rejected. However, S., who wants to participate in the case next to the plaintiff,. P..while a provision should have been made for the plaintiff’s intervention in the face of the fact that the plaintiff company had submitted a notarized statement stating that the bearer had a share coupon for 100 muharrer shares and therefore it was understood that he had a legal interest in this case, the rejection of this request by an interim decision dated dec1/09/2013 was not correct.
2- According to the reason and form of the violation, there is no need to examine the other appeals of the mumeyiz party’s deputies for the time being.
CONCLUSION: For the reason described in paragraph (1) above, P.. P..it was unanimously decided on 06/10/2015 that there was no place for the examination of other appeals of the mumeyiz party’s deputies for the reasons described in paragraph (2), that the appeal fee they paid would be returned to the appellants if they requested.
