02 Mar A LEGAL RELATIONSHIP ARISING FROM A CONTRACT OR LAW PROVIDING FOR JOINT AND FIDUCIARY LIABILITY AND A DECISION ON THE ABSENCE OF A REASON
T.C. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
23.law office
Base: 2014/539
Decision: 2014/4650
Date of Decision: 17.06.2014
CASE OF CANCELLATION OF THE APPEAL – LEGAL RELATIONSHIP ARISING FROM A CONTRACT OR LAW STIPULATING JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY AND NO REASON – HOLDING THE NATURAL PERSON RESPONSIBLE DUE TO THE NEED TO DECIDE ON THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE RELATED TO THE COMPANY
ABSTRACT: Considering that there is no legal relationship and reason arising from a contract or law that provides for joint and mutual liability by the court, the defendant should be content with holding the natural person responsible, and the case related to the defendant company should be dismissed due to the absence of passive hostility.
(2004 P. K. m. 67) (818 P. K. m. 141) (6098 P. K. m. 162)
Case: At the end of the trial of the case for the cancellation of the appeal between the parties, the file was examined, the case was discussed and considered as necessary when the defendants appealed by proxy within the period of the provision made for the partial acceptance of the case for the reasons written in the dec:
Verdict: Deputy plaintiff, defendant M. Sh. K.’s due to the activities of the company other defendant, at the client’s hotel 2010, October-December period stayed several times in the defendant’s service to the company in the invoice of this accommodation costs for the implementation of the defendant paid a part of the bill, despite 17.799,89 TL 5 bill hadn’t been paid in question, along with the invoice receivables accrued interests for the purpose of enforcement proceedings initiated the collection to defendants ‘ objections to the withdrawal of the appeal on the grounds that it was unfair of 40% with demand and has prosecuted the defendant to deny the collection of executive compensation.
The deputy of the defendants, the client of the case for the absence of hostility from the point of view of the company, his client M. Sh. K. defended a substantive denial of terms.
According to the scope of the claim, defense, expert report and file by the court; the other defendant, who is the manager of the defendant company, is M. Sh. K.from time to time, the defendant stays in the plaintiff’s hotel as the manager of the defendant company, this issue is accepted by both parties, some of the stays made by the defendant Meltem are paid by the other defendant company (payments dated 09.02.2009 and 02.03.2009), but some payments are not made, in this regard, the defendant M. Sh. K.it was found that the company owes the amount of TL 17,799.89, although the defendant is the defendant of the accommodation of the company’s representative. Sh. K. although the defense has been made that the other defendant company does not have a driver’s license for hostility, the statements of the parties submitted to the file, defendant M. Sh. K.commercial company records that the defendant is an official of the company show that invoices from periods when the same defendant previously stayed in the same hotel were sent to Defendant M. Sh. K. although it is maintained by the other respondent, it is paid by the company, this issue has been repeated more than once, as a result of which this issue has become a customary practice between the parties, and the respondent has M. Dec. Sh. K.it was decided to cancel the appeal for the principal receivable of TL 17,799.89 with the partial acceptance of the case and to collect 40% execution denial compensation from the defendants on the grounds that the defendant firm was found to be responsible for the debt in question, that the default before the follow-up had not occurred, and that the receivable was liquid in the capacity of the defendant company official stayed at the hotel and that the defendant company was responsible for the debt in question.
The decision was appealed by the deputy defendants.
1- According to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based and the reasons for it, there is no inaccuracy in the discretion of the evidence, the defendant M. Sh. K. the appeals of his deputy were not considered on the spot.
2- As for the appeals of the defendant company’s deputy;
a) The case is related to the request to cancel the appeal against the enforcement proceedings initiated for the collection of the accommodation service fee. On the date of the invoice, which constitutes the basis of the receivable subject to follow-up by the court in the justification part of the provision, the defendant M. Sh. K.it was stated that the defendant stayed at the hotel belonging to the plaintiff, and this defendant was also held responsible. The said defendant’s deputy argued that this client stayed at the hotel, that this client paid the debt of the period of his stay, that his client’s company could not be held responsible. Article 141 of the Civil Code No. 818, which is in force as of the date of the case. (TBK’s 162nd. article; “If each of the multiple debtors informs that he has agreed to be responsible for the entire debt to the creditor, a fiduciary indebtedness arises. If there is no such notification, the fiduciary indebtedness arises only in the cases provided for by law. it contains the provision “. In this case, taking into account that there is no legal relationship and reason arising from a contract or law that provides for joint and mutual liability by the court, the defendant M. Sh. K.while it should be decided that the case related to the defendant company should be dismissed due to the absence of passive hostility, the defendant M. Sh. K.’s company, the officials of the defendant, the defendant relating to previous stays at the same hotel bill paid for by the company, a practice that has become of these matters between the parties, therefore, the defendant is responsible for the debt of the company on the grounds that the subject of a dispute between the defendants and non-contentious regarding the following accommodations the time of application by the defendant to be taken as basis for particular debt, the company also has not been responsible for the following liabilities to be accurate.
b) According to the reason for the violation, there was no need to examine the other appeals of the defendant company’s attorney.
Conclusion: For the reasons described in paragraph (1) above, defendant M. Sh. K.for the reasons described in paragraph (2a), the decision is OVERTURNED for the benefit of the defendant company with the acceptance of the appeals of the defendant company’s attorney, for the reasons described in paragraph (2b), there is no place for the examination of the other appeals of the defendant company’s attorney, the approval fee written below is the defendant M. Sh. K.it was decided unanimously on 17.06.2014 that the way to correct the decision would be open within 15 days from the notification of the decision.
No Comments