T. C.
SUPREME
11. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
PRINCIPAL NO: 2016/9880
DECISION NO: 2018/2363
DECISION DATE: 03.04.2018

Summary: the case is related to the request for cancellation of the bond due to loss and the court has decided to dismiss the case in writing on the grounds that the plaintiff has no legal benefit. However, from the scope of the dossier, it is understood that the claimant bank inherits the bonds requested for cancellation with the turnover of the collection and has the capacity of acting bearer. Since the collection turnover is a unique form of representation for the collection of the amount of the deed and the related rights protection operations, the bank in the position of acting bearer has the right to request the return of the deed in the hands of the third party or to request the cancellation due to loss. In this case, the court must decide on the legal benefit of the plaintiff in filing a lawsuit for the cancellation of the Negotiable Instruments.

Malatya 4.The decision of the court of First Instance dated 08/01/2016 and numbered 2015/485-2016/42 was requested by the acting plaintiff and it was understood that the appeal was granted within the period of the petition, after the report prepared by the investigating judge Özlem Ezgi Solak for the case file was listened and the petition;

The attorney of the plaintiff has requested and sued for the cancellation of the Negotiable Instruments by claiming that the promissory notes given to his client with the turnover of the collection have been lost in their branches.

According to the scope of the whole file, the court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the cases related to the cancellation of the Negotiable Instruments should be opened by the authorized bearer and that the claimant bank holding the bonds with the turnover of the collection is not of legal benefit.

The plaintiff’s lawyer has appealed.

The court has decided to dismiss the case in writing on the grounds that there is no legal benefit for the plaintiff. However, from the scope of the dossier, it is understood that the claimant bank inherits the bonds requested for cancellation with the turnover of the collection and has the capacity of acting bearer. Since the collection turnover is a unique form of representation for the collection of the amount of the deed and the related rights protection operations, the bank in the position of acting bearer has the right to request the return of the deed in the hands of the third party or to request the cancellation due to loss. In this case, the court should decide on the legal benefit of the plaintiff in the case of cancellation of the Negotiable Instruments, while it was not right to reject the case in writing and the decision should be overturned.

Conclusion: for the reasons described above, it was unanimously decided on 03/04/2018 that with the acceptance of the appeal appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney, the provision would be overturned for the benefit of the plaintiff, and that the advance appeal fee paid would be returned to the appellant at his request.