30 Jan Detinue Claim-The Fact That There Is a Tight Organic Bond Between The Respondent Third Party Company And The Follow-up Debtor Company Is The Possibility That The Debtor May Miss The Property
T.C. Supreme Court 8. Legal Department E: 2018/1051, K: 2018/14800, K.T.: 03.07.2018
Court :Executive Law Court
Case type : fortification
At the end of the trial between the parties and in the case described above, the court decided to partially accept the case,and the decision was examined by the Supreme Court by holding a hearing of the defendant 3. it was requested by the person’s attorney and by the plaintiff’s creditor’s attorney without a request for a hearing. After examining the file, it was understood that the work was subject to a hearing, and a call paper was sent to the parties, which was appointed on Tuesday 30.05.2017 for the hearing. The defendant who appealed on the day of the hearing 3.acting person Av. … came. After the hearing began, it became clear that the appeal request was within the period and the oral explanation of those present was heard, the hearing was terminated; after the decision was made to return the file to the mahal court to replenish the deficiencies seen as a result of the examination of the file, the deficiency was completed, and the file was re-examined.:
Attorney of the plaintiff’s creditor in the original and merged case; … 14. 2011/9863 in the main follow-up file of the Executive Directorate 18.11.2014 and 30.07.2015 during the foreclosures made, these claims are unfair, companies claiming fortification with the borrower operate in the same area, there are first-degree kinship relations, no evidence proving the fortification claim is presented, with the acceptance of the case 3. he demanded and sued the decision to remove the person’s claim for rations.
In the original and combined case, the defendant 3. the attorney of the person asked for the dismissal of the case, arguing that the case was not opened during the period, the foreclosures were removed, the case remained unresolved, that the place where the foreclosure was made had nothing to do with the borrower, that the client was the factory that the company produced, that the case was unfair.
According to an expert examination conducted by the court as a result of the collection of evidence reported by the parties,the invoice for eight drum washing and drying machines with five pools of confiscated goods is registered in the commercial books of the defendant company, while the invoices of the other embarrassed ones are not found, Report 8. that is specified in the item of fixed asset records of the company in the commercial registry defendant is present, but it could not be exactly determined due to a lack of bills, where the main case in this regard in terms of the ration was unjustified claim that, coupled with the case outside of the washing machine drum in terms of one to five pools, eight wool mahcuz the claim of unjustified with regard to the rights of third parties, on the grounds that the principal case with the acceptance of the denial of the claim of the third person in terms of foreclosures dated 18.11.2014 ration combined with partial acceptance of the case, 30.07.2015 in terms of foreclosure 1 piece 5 Pool 8 drum wool washing machine in terms of mahcuzlar in terms of the third person’s claim of fortification denial, iiy’ın 97/13. as the legal conditions in the article did not occur, it was decided that there was no place for compensation to be imposed for the benefit of the creditor.
Provision, plaintiff acting creditor and defendant 3. it was appealed by the person’s attorney.
The original and combined case is the 99th of the creditor’s first. based on Article 3. a denial of a person’s claim for fortification relates to the request.
1-from the point of view of the actual case;
No. 4949 of the enforcement and Insolvency Act 2004 No. 101 of the Act. amended by Article 363. according to the provision of the article; in order to appeal the decisions to be made by the executive courts after 30.07.2003, when the law entered into force,the value of the case subject to appeal must exceed US $ 2,000.00.
102 of the law No. 4949. Appendix 1 added with article. in accordance with article 298 of the Tax Procedure Code No. 213 of the monetary limits applied in the previous year, this monetary limit is valid from the beginning of each calendar year. in accordance with the article … it is implemented by increasing the rate of reassessment identified and announced by the Ministry each year. The parts of the limits set in this way that do not exceed ten million TL (10.00 TL) are not taken into account.
Accordingly, in order to appeal the decisions to be made by the executive courts in 2016,the subject of the appeal must be over £ 6,310.00.
Iik’s 363/1. in order for an appeal to be reviewed in fortification cases and fortification cases that are considered among the decisions that can be appealed in paragraph (7) of the article, it is necessary that the value of the property or right associated with the decision of the executive Court exceeds this amount determined in accordance with the special regulation contained in the last sentence of the same paragraph.
In a concrete case,the value of the appellants is less than TL 6,310.00.
In this case, the defendant 3 in terms of the actual case, as the provision is of a final nature. a person’s appeal must be rejected.
2-from the point of view of the combined case; according to the information and documents in the Ava file, there is no procedural and illegal direction in discussing and evaluating the evidence based on the justification of the court’s decision, the defendant 3.refusal of the person’s attorney’s appeals,
B-appeals of the plaintiff’s creditor’s attorney for compensation, case number 99. according to the article, the refusal is not in place due to the lack of compensation regulation in the said Article,
C – in the examination of the creditor’s other appeals;
The debtor company and the defendant 3. in the examination of the company’s detailed trade registry records of the person, the debtor of the company’s partners…. it’s, uh, 430. street No: 10/1 … ” in which he operates, defendant 3. if the person is the company’s partners … and …, taking into account the share ratios…where the company holds the position of dominant partner in the company, the company was established on 22.06.2010, the dominant partner in the Trade Registry…, the address of residence, “Y…. 430. street No.: 10/1 … ” it is seen that this address is the address of the company that you owe to follow,….considering that nun is a husband and wife, and … and the children of these persons, the defendant 3. it is necessary to recognize that there is a tight organic bond between the person’s company and the company that is a follow-up debtor, and that they have smuggled goods from creditors by conducting consensual transactions. As mentioned above, 3. the establishment of the company is 22.06.2010, and this date corresponds to after the birth of the debt, which is the subject of the main prosecution in the case.
In that case, it was not right for the court to establish a provision for partial acceptance of the combined case, instead of acceptance of these material and legal facts, on grounds that do not correspond to the formation and content of the file.
Conclusion: 3 for the reasons described in Paragraph (1) Above. 3 for the reasons described in Paragraph (2-A). (2-B) for the reasons described in Paragraph (2-C) for the reasons described in Paragraph (2-C) for the reasons described in paragraph (366 and 6100 of HMK of the provision with the acceptance of the appeal request of the plaintiff’s creditor. article 428 of Humk No. 1086. in accordance with article 366/3 of the iik by the parties. according to the article, The Court of Cassation can request a correction of the decision within 10 days from the notification of the application, the advance fee can be returned separately to the appellants in case of request, it was unanimously decided on 03.07.2018.