06 May Confiscation Of Live Animals
Enforcement Bankruptcy Act No. 2004 md 82 “the following things cannot be foreclosed:
md.82/1-4.bend, “ the indebted farmer is the land and couple of animals that are essential for his and his family’s livelihood.’,
md.82/5.bend said, ” if necessary for the administration of the debtor and his family, the debtor would prefer a milk-giving mandate or cow or three goats or sheep, and their feeding and abetting for three months .’’
md.82/1-7.Clause 2.the sentence states,” the amount required for the provisions of the debtor himself and his family, whose livelihood is exclusive to the raising of animals, and the feeding and abetting of these animals for three months.”,
Arranged under the heading “ impoundment of cubed animals’, md.83 / b States, ” in the case of animal foreclosures, offspring who need to be cared for by their mothers cannot be sequestered separately from their mothers, nor can their mothers be sequestered separately from their offspring.”
On the other hand, Law No. 5199 on the protection of animals md.5/5 ” The owners of houses and ornamental animals that are cared for especially in the house and garden can not be impounded due to commercial purpose.”he has given his judgment.
When the provisions of both laws are evaluated together, the seizure of cargo, passenger, land animals and certain commercial valuables is possible unless there are exceptional conditions specified in 82,83/b, however, the seizure of houses and ornamental animals, especially cared for in the house and garden, is not possible due to the law No. 5199.
A common occurrence in foreclosures of large head or small head animals that do not accommodate exceptional conditions, 3. it is the end of one’s claims for rations on living animals.
Enforcement Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 article 97 / a- (Annex: 18/2/1965-538/55 Md. The owner of a movable property is considered his owner. Even if the debtor and third parties hold the movable property together, the goods are considered in the possession of the debtor. It is assumed that they belong to women, men and children as a result of their nature, or those who belong to Customs and customs, arts, professions or pastimes. The burden of proving the contrary to this presumption falls on the person who claims it. The claimant of ration is obliged to show and prove the legal and actual reasons and events which require the possession of the goods and the possession of the debtor.
3.Claiming rations on live animals in the foreclosure of live animals.in relation to the person, the Supreme Court 21. LAW APARTMENT. 2007/25774, K. 2008/16917, T. On the Dog Tag dated 3.11.2008 :
Summary: in the foreclosure process performed at the address of the debtor, it is deemed that the property of the real estate located at the address of the debtor belongs to the debtor. It’s a legal presumption. 3 of these confiscated goods. 3 if it belongs to a person. the individual must prove this claim with strong and conclusive evidence. Otherwise, the claim of rations cannot be proved by simply making a statement.
Decision: the dispute is related to the ration suit filed by the third party based on articles 96 and continuation of the execution and Bankruptcy Code.
The third person is the son of the debtor and since the lien was carried out on 20.03.2006 in the absence of the debtor and in the presence of the third person of the plaintiff in the garden of the house belonging to the debtor, the presumption of ownership stipulated in Article 97/A of the OIC is for the benefit of the debtor and 3 of the opposite of this presumption. it has to be proven by the person with strong and conclusive evidence.
From the records and documents in the file; bovine animals with foreclosure, registered with tr10000007763 on behalf of the plaintiff after the foreclosure and the day before the lawsuit was filed on 07.11.2006 and 4 animal passport documents dated 12.01.2007 TR 1000000191500; TR991000699218; TR99100062716 and TR100000040904 earrings number of bovine animals are understood to be the year 2002. Witnesses heard said that the third plaintiff purchased the foreclosed cattle with a bank loan in April 2006.
The work to be done by the court in this case, on behalf of the plaintiff recorded in the system with the business number TR10000007763 after the date of foreclosure ( TR 1000000191500; TR991000699218; tr99100062716 and tr100000040904 earrings number ) since the birth of bovine animals, the first animal passport is registered in the name of who is from the date of establishment, the reasons and dates of the transfer to the plaintiff should be investigated in detail and
Then, the respondent’s creditor’s appeals aimed at these aspects should be accepted and the provision should be overturned.
Conclusion: it was decided unanimously on 03.11.2008 that the provision was overturned due to the reasons described above and that the appeal fee should be returned to the defendant ( creditor) upon request.
Supreme Court 8. Legal Department Principal No: 2015/13159karararno:2015 / 19176K.Date: dated 26.10.2015 if the Dog Tag:
K A R A R: Plaintiff 3. person deputy, on 05.03.2012 the animals belonging to his client have been foreclosed, the animals subject to foreclosure have no interest with the debtor, the address made in foreclosure 3. the person declared that the company owned Animal Farm, and accepted the claim for rations, and requested and sued for the decision to remove the foreclosures on the animals confiscated and to hand them over to his client.
1-the information and documents in the case file, the evidence based on the reason of the court decision to be discussed, there is no direction contrary to the procedure and the law,plaintiff 3.the passports submitted to the file by the person examined the animals subject to foreclosure .. earring number of the bovine on 8.7.2011 i.e. before the birth of the debt claimant 3.the person is understood to have been born in the company-owned enterprise, and the defendant’s creditor’s attorney’s appeal against the aforementioned bovine was dismissed,
2-as for the appeal of the decision of the defendant’s creditor’s attorney against other animals subject to foreclosure other than bovine animals mentioned in bend No. 1, the foreclosure subject to the lawsuit was made in the presence of the debtor. Therefore, the presumption of ownership in Article 97/a of the IIK is for the benefit of the debtor and therefore the creditor. The third person, who is under the burden of proof and has the opportunity to prove the contrary of the presumption with all kinds of evidence, claims that the confiscated animals belong to him, that there are animal passports, and even if he has presented animal passports as evidence, the passports presented to the file and the ear earrings numbers of the animals subject to The list in the annex of Article 23.3.2015 of the Directorate of Agriculture and animal husbandry, which was added to the file on the rejection decision dated 26.2.2015 during the appeal review, indicated that the animals were confiscated and the enterprises where they were found as of 23.3.2015, although the information on who the animals were born in.
RESULT
Large head and small head animals are in the form of securities and may be in actual foreclosure.
Agriculture provincial or district directorates on behalf of the debtor/debtors in the direction of whether there are animals registered in the museum written in the name of the debtor/debtors large head and small head animals can be learned. However, the information from the Directorate of Agriculture is that there is only one animal registered in the passport on behalf of the person. As presented and explained, the presumption of ownership in Article iik 97/A is for the benefit of the creditor. The person claiming ration can prove otherwise with all kinds of evidence. However, The Supreme Court Is 17.Department Of Law 2012/13033 E. Decidessee also; He evaluated the evidence based on the claim of rations for animals with earrings before the conclusive evidence and concluded that the claim of rations was not proven in respect of the claims based on the statement in respect of animals without earrings.
No Comments