T.C. SUPREME COURT
11.law office

Base: 2004/5892
Decision: 2005/3009
Date of Decision: 29.03.2005

ABSTRACT: The plaintiff is a Czech reseller, and the check cancellation case filed must be rejected.

(6762 Pp. K. m. 669, 730)

Case: Aydın court of first instance in the case between the parties. The examination of the decision No. 2003/578 – 2003/1387 issued by the Civil Court dated 15.12.2003 by the Supreme Court was requested by the deputy plaintiff and it was understood that the appeal was granted within the period of the application, but the Examining Judge for the case file said C. after the report edited by him was listened to and again the petitions, trial minutes and all the documents in the file were read and examined, and then discussed and considered as necessary for the job:

Verdict: 5.000.000.000 check written by the deputy plaintiff to the bearer of his client.-Sadat Ö by writing TL price.he requested and sued to decide on the cancellation of the check, claiming that he had prepared it for issuance to but lost it, and that he would suffer damages if the check was submitted.

The deputy, who participated in the case as an intervener, requested that the case be dismissed, arguing that his client was the holder of the check subject to the case, that he was a bona fide holder because he had no legal relationship with the plaintiff that it was passed to him through turnover.

The court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that, according to the claim, the intervention petition and the evidence collected, the check subject to the lawsuit was discovered to the bearer, it was involved with the turnover, and there was no valid evidence of the disappearance claim.

According to Article 730/20 of the Turkish Commercial Code and Article 669 of the same law and its continuation, check cancellation lawsuits due to loss should be filed without adversary due to the nature of the work and the legal consequences it will cause, as well as the right to file an cancellation lawsuit due to loss of check in this case is a recognized right in favor and pregnant, and the retailer does not have the right to file an cancellation lawsuit based on these legal provisions.

In a concrete case, the plaintiff is a Czech applicant, and in accordance with the principles set out above, it was not considered correct to decide to dismiss the case on different grounds, while the check cancellation case filed should be dismissed, H.U.M.K. in accordance with article 438/last of the law, the court’s justification had to be amended and the correct decision as a result had to be upheld on the grounds described.

Conclusion: It was decided unanimously on 29.03.2005 that the appeal fee of the balance 1.10 YTL written below should be taken from the appellant by rejecting the appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney for the reasons described above and APPROVING the decision on the grounds described below.

You can read other articles by clicking here.