07 Apr AN EXAMPLE OF A SUPREME COURT DECISION ON COOPERATIVES
T.C. SUPREME
11.law office
Base: 2003/13739
Decision: 2004/8533
Date of Decision: 20.09.2004
Case: In the case between the parties, Şereflikoçhisar Asliye 2. Dec.26.06.2003 2002/98 date and issued by a court of law-as the decision of the Supreme Court of 2003/107 cooperative examination of the defendant with the plaintiff’s attorney, and the attorneys and defendants filed by the petition of Appeal is given within the period of some being understood that, with the audit report to file a claim held by the judge rested for the horse to stop, and again the pleadings in the petition within the file, read all the documents and the minutes of hearings and, after examining the nature of the business is discussed, considered:
Decision: the plaintiff’s attorney, the defendant, in order to get a loan from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs cooperative, cooperative agreement pursuant to Article 8 of the 3rd clause of the agreement and the partners, the partners purchased to distribute to bovine animals that you have to take out insurance for a period of one year, the defendant, who is an insurance agent for the purpose of cooperative and rights holders to apply and you took the insurance for your client, the client status report on bank loans cooperatives paid to this branch of şereflikoçhisar Z, he claimed that the defendants had avoided paying their insurance premium debts despite this, and that the enforcement proceedings initiated in this regard had stopped as a result of the defendants’ unfair objection, and requested and sued for the cancellation of the defendants’ objections and the collection of 40% enforcement-denial compensation from the defendants.
The defendant cooperative and some of the defendants’ deputies, arguing that no insurance contract had been signed between their client and the plaintiff, asked for the dismissal of the case and also requested and sued for the collection of 40% decisiveness compensation from the plaintiff.
The court decided to reject the claimant’s and the respondent’s claim for damages, which cannot be proven on dec basis that there is no written document stating that an insurance contract has been concluded between the parties, the terms of the damages have not been formed, based on the collected evidence.
The decision was appealed by the deputy plaintiff and the defendant cooperative and some of the defendants’ deputies.
1- According to the information and documents contained in the case file, there is no procedural and legal direction in discussing and evaluating the evidence based on the justification for the court’s decision, it was necessary to decide on the rejection of all appeals that were not considered on the spot of the mumeyiz defendant’s attorney.
2 – when it comes to the appeal of the appeal, the plaintiff’s attorney; the information in the file and documents from the examination of state aid to 30.04.1990 published in the official gazette of investment activities of agricultural cooperatives regulation 11/item h, T.C. Z. The provisions of the protocol between the Ministry of Agriculture and rural affairs with the bank referred to the bank’s general letter No. 5797 31.08.1999 date and cooperative partners in accordance with Article 8 of the agreement and 3 of the agreement, the insurance requirement of the animals should be fulfilled davalilarca price to be paid, the insurance agent of the plaintiff resides, where A. BSh. T. by the General Directorate.C. Z. It is understood that the bank paid the defendants after informing the Şereflikoçhisar Branch Directorate of the Bank that the cows belonging to the defendants were covered by insurance coverage, and the insurance coverage began by arranging separate policies for the benefit of the defendants by the plaintiff’s agent.
TTC.in accordance with Article 1263 of the law, insurance contracts are not among the form-dependent ones. Therefore, insurance policies are not a condition of contractual validity, but only a means of proof showing the rights and obligations of the parties. In addition to the proof, many of the documents described above are also available in the file, and on the basis of these documents, the defendants received loans. In addition, the plaintiff’s policy arrangement without the application of the defendants is also contrary to the usual course of life. In the face of this situation, the court recognized that a valid insurance contract had been established between the parties, and the amount of receivables that the plaintiff could claim should be determined and decided according to the result, while it was not correct to establish a provision in writing, which required deconstruction.
Conclusion: Refusal of all appeals of the mumeyiz defendants’ attorney for the reasons described in paragraph (1) above, VIOLATION of the decision for the plaintiff’s attorney’s appeals for the reasons described in paragraph (2) for the plaintiff’s attorney’s appeals for the reasons described in paragraph (2) for the plaintiff’s benefit, the balance written below is 2.220.000.-it was unanimously decided on 20.09.2004 that the lira appeal fee should be taken from the defendant cooperative and some of the defendants who appealed, and that the appeal advance fee paid should be returned to the plaintiff who appealed at his request.
You can read other articles and petition examples by clicking here.
No Comments