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
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-21380,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



14. Legal Department Main No: 2017/3310 Decision No: 2021/601

Dispute: The elimination of the partnership is related to the fact that if the plaintiff renounces his case and one of the defendants wants to continue the case, the court must decide on the merits of the work by continuing the case.

Plaintiff’s Request: He requested that the partnership on 12 real estate owned by him and the defendants be resolved by selling it in the same way as taksim, if this is not possible.

Defendant’s Answer: They stated that they wanted to share the real estate, that they wanted to get their own rights.

Court of First Instance Decision: The case was decided to be dismissed due to the waiver.

Appeal: The defendant has been appealed by his/her deputy.

Supreme Court 14. The Decision of the Legal Department to Overturn:

Supreme Court 14. In the decision of the Law Office to overturn it was stated that the cases of elimination of the partnership (partnership) are bilateral, cases with similar consequences for the parties, and in these cases the defendant has the same rights as the plaintiff. For this reason, it was emphasized that the plaintiff’s request to eliminate the stakeholder by selling will not prevent the defendants from asking for the same share. It has been stated that if the plaintiff waives his case and one of the defendants wants to continue the case, the court should continue the case and decide on the merits of the work. Accordingly, it was stated that the plaintiff should be asked what the defendants who are ready to declare a waiver of the case have to say, and if they want to continue the case, the trial should continue.

In the concrete case; it is understood that the plaintiff’s attorney waived the case with all its consequences at the hearing dated 03.03.2014, and the court decided to dismiss the case due to the waiver after the defendant’s attorney Gabriel, who was ready, stated that he had no objection to the waiver.

However, the principal defendant, dated 24.09.2007 the Sultan, to the elimination of the partnership that wants to decide at the hearing, the plaintiff’s attorney dated 03.03.2014 has renounced the case for hearing the petition of the defendant is present at the hearing where the deputy of the Sultan presented and excuse, in this case double-sided which is in the nature of the case the defendant against the elimination of the partnership in the case of waiver of counsel from the case after receipt of the statement should be established effect while the case against the denial of the waiver into unprecedented decision to say something without being asked, therefore, quashed the decision of the court of First Instance was.

You can reach our other articles, sample decisions and petitions by clicking here

No Comments

Post A Comment