An Injunction Must Be Made In Proportion To The Plaintiff’s Request And Not Affect The Commercial Life Of The Defendant

19 Dec An Injunction Must Be Made In Proportion To The Plaintiff’s Request And Not Affect The Commercial Life Of The Defendant

Supreme Court 21. Legal Department Basis No: 2015/13677, Decision No: 2015/16643

Court : Ermenek Court of First Instance
Date: 11/02/2015
Number: 2014/510

In the case of material and moral compensation filed by the plaintiffs, the defendants requested that the injunction placed on all their rights and receivables be lifted with the acceptance of their objections to the injunction decisions made in accordance with the tensip decision of the Local Court.
The court has decided to partially accept the request as stated in its declaration.
Of the defendants, Ermenek Cenne lignite coal Enterprises Ltd. Ltd. after it became clear that the request for an appeal was pending by the attorney at trial, and the papers in the file were read with a report issued by the judge, and the case concerning the provision of the appeal was filed under the law 438 of the Civil Procedure Code. after the decision was made to reject the request for a judicial review of the Supreme Court, as it did not comply with any of the cases indicated in the article numbered and limited, the work was considered necessary and the following decision was determined.

DECISION

1.The decision subject to appeal is the Local Court’s injunction decision as of 15.12.2014.
No. 389 of HMK 6100. according to Article 40 and 41 of law 3213 with the Securities and real estate of the defendant companies. Acceptance of the request for an injunction in the nature of an injunction, limited to 75% of the rights born in accordance with the articles,granting an injunction in the nature of an injunction, 555,000,00-TL to be stored in a quarterly futures account that will be opened in the case file to the branch of the Agricultural Bank of Armenia, … ” the decision has been made; it is an injunction decision in the nature of a written decision.
With the decision made by the court at the Hearing dated 11/02/2015 on the defendants ‘ objection to the injunction lien decision;” … partial acceptance of the defendants ‘ objections against the injunction decisions,
Cancellation of injunctive relief decisions that were placed in the defendants ‘letter of guarantee due to the case, the continuation of the injunctive relief decision on the defendants’ Securities and real estate goods, limited to the value of the case other than the letters of guarantee,
3. Individuals private person, company, institution as of the date of the lawsuit against the defendants born and Born rights on the continuation of the injunction decisions limited to 50% of the value of the case,
Refusal of a request for excess,..” the decision has been made, after the appeal of the decision mentioned by the defendant Ermenek Cenne coal enterprises attorney, the court of Appeal with the additional decision dated 05.03.2015 of the General Assembly of the law combining the case law of the Supreme Court 21/02/2014 date 2013/1 E. 2014/1 K. it was decided to reject the appeal on the grounds that the appeal could not be appealed in relation to the request for an injunction.
The court, 15.12.2014 dated “injunction foreclosure as of its nature” decision given the wrong meaning of the injunction as a result of the decision to reject the appeal request is against the procedure and law and the court’s additional decision dated 05.03.2015 dated must be removed and entered into the basis of the work.
2. According to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision was based and for legal reasons, the defendant Ermenek Cenne Lignit coal Enterprises Ltd. Ltd. rejection of other appeals beyond the scope of the following bendin,
3. Of the plaintiffs, one of the defendants, Ermenek Cenne lignite coal Enterprises Ltd. Ltd. Has sugars with Nak Mining Energy. Ins. Renown. Tic. Co.It is understood that he died as a result of a work accident on 28.10.2014 in the mine enterprise owned by şti.
Article 257/1 of iik 2, while it was announced that an injunction may be requested due to a money debt that was not pledged and was due. it is explained in which cases an injunction may be requested due to an overdue debt.
In a concrete case, it is clear that damage has occurred based on an unfair act. Only the disability rate and defect status should be contested. In cases of compensation arising from tort, the liability for compensation becomes due as of the date of the event. In this case, the provisional legal protection, which is one of the ways of the recent foreclosures occurred in the precautionary proof condition, the court or the plaintiff’s real estate which lien regarding receivables and immovable properties to prompt to aciklatild concretely, after the plaintiff’s claim and the defendant commensurate with the commercial life of the company so that it does not affect “the proportionality of the measures the principle of” appropriate precautionary be agreed on foreclosures while you should comply with these principles and procedures to be decided in that manner is against the law and do not cause destruction.
In that case, one of the defendants, Ermenek Cenne lignite coal Enterprises Ltd. Ltd. his deputy’s appeals aimed at these aspects must be accepted and the provision overturned.
Conclusion: for the reasons described above,
1 – the court’s additional decision dated 05.03.2015 to be removed and entered into the basis of the work,
2-in case of violation of the Local Court decision, the appeal fee is requested by the defendant Ermenek Cenne lignite coal Enterprises Ltd. His extradition was unanimously decided on 15.09.2015.