AŞIKOĞLU LAW OFFİCE | Cancellation Of Negotiable Instruments
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
17244
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-17244,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,side_area_uncovered_from_content,qode-theme-ver-14.2,qode-theme-bridge,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.4.7,vc_responsive
 

Cancellation Of Negotiable Instruments

Cancellation Of Negotiable Instruments

SUPREME

LEGAL DEPARTMENT
1979/1436
1979/1416
21.3.1979
Loss certificate due to loss of Negotiable Instruments (proof of the existence of receivables in the case filed without a bond )
Obligation to prove the existence of the receivables ( loss certificate due to loss of Negotiable Instruments )
Loss of bond (obligation to prove the existence of the claim in the case filed on the basis of the loss certificate )
Claim filed on the basis of loss certificate ( in case of loss of Bond )
6762 / m.557,564,669,743

Summary: because of the loss of the Negotiable Instruments, the claimant who receives the cancellation decision ( loss certificate ) has earned the right to file a lawsuit against the debtor without the deed with the cancellation decision and must prove the existence of his / her claim in the lawsuit filed.

Case: due to the case between the parties (Erzurum first First Instance judge )NCE 29.9.1978 date and 1336/585 no. of the appeal examination of the judgment requested by the attorney of the plaintiff and within the time of the appeal petition was understood to have been given by the papers in the file were spoken and considered :

Verdict: the attorney of the plaintiff claimed that the debtor of the 9,000 lira note with a term of 15.11.1976, which was deposited with the guarantee turnover, was the defendant, that the note sent to Erzurum Yapı ve Kredi Bank for collection was lost in the mail, and that his client received an annulment decision from the court and demanded and sued the defendant for collection of 9.000 lira.

In his defense, the defendant requested that the case be dismissed because the subject of the lawsuit was not the debtor of the deed.

The court has decided to dismiss the case that cannot be proven.

The verdict has been appealed by the acting plaintiff.

TTK’s 557. in accordance with the article, the right in the bond shall not be exercised separately from the bond. For this reason, the plaintiff has received a loss certificate due to the lost original deed and thus has earned the right to file a lawsuit against the debtor without the deed. However, the claimant must also prove the existence of the claim. The claimant is the creditor with the lost deed 17.11.1976 dated cash register slip and the amount owed due to the aforementioned bond the claimant deposited in the bank, but with the cash register slip dated 16.12.1976, the bond is owed to the bank because it has not been returned to him and has collected the amount deposited from the bank. In the meantime, the defendant who says he is not indebted tells the plaintiff in a letter dated 7.2.1977 that he is the debtor of the deed which is the subject of the lawsuit. In this case, since the plaintiff has proved that he will take the missing person in the year, it is impossible to dismiss the case based on the fact that the claim has not been substantiated and that the case has been made unnecessarily, while it should be decided to accept the case in writing.

Conclusion: it was decided unanimously on 21.3.1979 that the appeal fee paid by the attorney of the plaintiff should be returned to the appellant at his request.

No Comments

Post A Comment

GermanTurkeyRussiaFinlandIran