a Lien Cannot Be Made Unless It Is Authorized By The Court That Issued The Injunction - AŞIKOĞLU LAW OFFİCE
Aşıkoğlu started his position as the Alanya Public Prosecutor in 2009 and continued until 2013 when he quit his position to initiate his career as an attorney at law.
alanya,hukuk,bürosu,avukat,dava,danışma,mehmet,aşıkoğlu,mehmet aşıkoğlu,savcı,eski,ceza,ticaret,haciz,alacak,borçlar,Mehemet,Aşıkoğlu,alanya,avukat,hukuk,bürosu,alanya avukat, mehmet aşıkoğlu, alanya hukuk bürosu,Kerim Uysal,Kerem Yağdır,ahmet sezer, mustafa demir, hüsnü sert, jale karakaya, murat aydemir, ayşegül yanmaz
16776
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-16776,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,no_animation_on_touch,side_area_uncovered_from_content,qode-theme-ver-14.2,qode-theme-bridge,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-6.13.0,vc_responsive
 

a Lien Cannot Be Made Unless It Is Authorized By The Court That Issued The Injunction

26 Apr a Lien Cannot Be Made Unless It Is Authorized By The Court That Issued The Injunction

Posted at 01:16h in General by
0 Likes

T.C.
SUPREME
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF LAW
PRINCIPAL NO: 2017/12-1144
DECISION NO: 2017/1055

THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
THE DECISION UNDER REVIEW
Court: Ankara 5. Enforcement Law Court
Date: 03/04/2014
Number: 2014/11 – 2014/479
Plaintiff-debtor: Y.A. deputy Av. K.Finish.
Defendant-creditor: T.C. Z. Bank A.P. deputy Av. G.O.
Defendant-tender recipient: C. Real Estate Auto Ins. Renown. and Tic. Co. Ltd. deputy Av. E.D.

Ankara 5 at the end of the trial due to the “termination of the tender” voluntary complaint between the parties. 07.03.2013 day and 2012/765 given by the court of execution (law) for the rejection of the request E., 2013/182 K. Decision No. 12 of the Court of Cassation on the appeal of the complainant/plaintiff deputy. 27.06.2013 Days Of Law Office and 2013/16830 E., 2013/24070 K. it was first upheld by the numbered decision; then upon request by the complainant/plaintiff acting to amend the decision, the Court of Cassation 12. 01.11.2013 days of the law office and 2013/28103 E., 2013/34172 K.. by numbered decision;

“…First.nun 134. the reasons for the termination of the tender are not stated in the article. Only the announcement of the sale of the tender has not been notified, the error in the essential qualities of the goods sold and B.K.nun 226. it was mentioned in the article that the tender may be broken due to the reasons of the tampering with the tender.

The reasons for the tender’s impairment both in doctrine and in the application of the Supreme Court;

1 -) to be mixed up in the tender mischief,

2 -) incorrect operations in preparation for increase,

3 -) incorrect transactions during the tender,

4 -) the buyer’s error about the important properties of the real estate is listed as.

In the concrete case, the Land Registry of the real estate tendered Ankara 14. 2008/7 Of The Court Of First Instance. the court asked whether the injunction was an obstacle to the sale by the court referred to by the Executive Directorate, and in the reply given with the article dated 05.04.2012, it was stated that the injunction is still in progress and that there is an obstacle to the sale. Ankara 14. 2008/7 Of The Court Of First Instance. on 03.04.2012, it was determined that the plaintiff’s attorney in the principal file had consented to the sale by applying to the execution file. With the consent of the attorney of the plaintiff, the injunction imposed by the court cannot be removed, but the court that has decided the injunction can be made with the decision of the relevant injunction can be removed, considering the fact that the sale can be made.; while it is necessary to decide on the termination of the tender without obtaining the consent of the court which decided the injunction, the rejection of the request is unattractive and the court decision should therefore be overturned, it is understood that it was upheld and the request for correction of the decision was accepted.…”

at the end of the retrial, the court resisted the previous decision by overturning the case and turning it back.

Appellant:complainant / acting plaintiff

RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE LAW

The law was examined by the General Assembly after it was understood that the decision to resist was appealed during the period and the papers in the file were read.:

While it is necessary to comply with the decision to disrupt the special circle adopted by the General Assembly of law according to the mutual claims and defences of the parties, the minutes and evidence in the file, the necessary reasons described in the decision to disrupt, it is against procedure and law to resist the previous decision.

Therefore, the decision to resist must be broken.

Conclusion: a unanimous decision was made on 31.05.2017, in accordance with Article 366/III of the execution Bankruptcy Law No. 2004, within 10 days of the notification of the decision, in order to correct the decision, to dissolve the decision of the complainant/plaintiff’s attorney to resist with the acceptance of the appeals appeals against the reasons shown in the

Tags:
, , , , , ,
No Comments

Post A Comment

GermanTurkeyRussiaFinlandIran