29 Oct IN A CLEAR AND INCOMPREHENSIBLE STATEMENT, BASED ON THE AMOUNTS SPECIFIED FROM EACH DEFENDANT’S POINT OF VIEW, IT IS INCORRECT TO ESTABLISH A PROVISION IN THE FORM OF JOINT RECEIPT FROM THE DEFENDANTS AND DELIVERY TO THE PLAINTIFF
11.law office
Base: 2016/4219
Decision: 2016/6890
Date of Decision: 22.06.2016
A REQUEST TO COLLECT CORPORATE DAMAGES – IN THE FORM OF A REQUEST TO BE RECEIVED JOINTLY FROM THE DEFENDANTS BASED ON THE AMOUNTS SPECIFIED IN EACH DEFENDANT AND GIVEN TO THE PLAINTIFF IN A CLEAR AND INCOMPREHENSIBLE WAY, THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A PROVISION – IN WHICH THE PROVISION IS VIOLATED
SUMMARY: The Court has decided that HMK 297. the principles expressed in article the scope of the provision, in consideration of all the evidence about defendants are identified and discussed the responsibilities of each individual respondent, reasoned and execution in a manner that does not attract the provision should be established for while you hesitate, “the expert report that is specified in the specified amount from the direction of each defendant jointly and granting of the defendant to the plaintiff to be taken on the basis of” clear and understandable in the form of non-words in terms of the establishment, and even some judgment on defendants has been established not just because it’s not true, therefore the decision of the Local Court had corruption.
(6100 pp. K. m. 297)
Case and Decisionship: In a case between the parties,,,. 2012/391-2014/383 of 28.05.2014 The Court of First Instance has requested the deputy plaintiffs, the defendant,,, the Bank’s deputy and part of the defendants’ deputy and it is understood that the appeal was granted within the period of the Examination Judge for the case file,, after the report edited by the hearing and again the petition in the file, layihas, after the minutes of the hearing and all the documents have been read and examined, they have been discussed and considered as necessary for the job:
The defendant, who is acting as a trustee of the Central Directorate of the plaintiffs, ,,,,, that he performs the initiation procedures by organizing fake documents on behalf of fictitious persons, including salary, salary difference, october course fee, education allowance, etc. in their names by including them in the payroll. the defendant,,,, is responsible for the damage caused, is in violation of the protocol signed with the institution, the defendant, ,,, is paid collectively despite the protocol being signed to pay the officers one by one, while the other defendants are paid collectively as the director of the institution, ita supervisor, accrual officer of the defendant,,,..claiming that they caused damage to the institution by not supervising the actions of, the institution has requested and sued for the collection of the damages together with the interest.
Defendant . ,, the deputy argued that the payment of pensions ,,, a was notified in the letter dated 11.01.1993, the protocol was removed from the transaction after this article, and his client’s bank had no defects and no liability.
The defendant,,, and his deputy asked for the dismissal of the case, arguing that no animosity could be directed at his client.
The other defendants and their proxies have defended the dismissal of the case.
According to the trial conducted by the court in accordance with the decree of annulment of our Apartment;,,,, the defendant, who acts as a trustee,,..’s start-up procedures are carried out by organizing documents on behalf of imaginary people, including these imaginary people on the payroll, salary, salary difference, october course fee, education allowance, etc. on their behalf on their own account by including these imaginary people in the payroll. that he accrued his rations, deposited them in the bank and then withdrew them, used them on his behalf and caused damage to the institution, the defendant ,,. outside assessor and supervisor of the defendants in his capacity as the institution for not showing the necessary care and attention they are responsible for damages, the defendant again also required when opening the account on behalf of fictitious persons of the submission of identity documents and signatures wet responsible for damages that occur because you don’t want with a partial acceptance of the case on the grounds that 10.684,51 TL 16/02/1999 from the date of the case history (7.762 principal and interest,interest on this amount is operated and provided 14 TL) handle with legal interest to the defendant,and the plaintiff is taken from granting, with the partial acceptance of the case on the basis of the merged 2013/617 basis, the defendant, with the legal interest that will be processed from 16/02/1999, which is the date of the case of 20.67 TL (provided that the interest is based on the amount of 6.45 TL interest on this amount), ,,,. A.It was decided that 4.517,06 TL should be taken from the Ş and given to the plaintiff, the defendants with the legal interest to process as of 05/10/2001, the date of the lawsuit (the amount based on the interest is 3.436, 38 TL provided that the interest on this amount is processed), the defendants should be taken jointly from the defendants and given to the plaintiff based on the amounts specified in each defendant’s aspect specified in the expert report.
The decision was appealed by the deputy plaintiffs, the defendant, his deputy, and some defendants and their deputies.
1- The lawsuit is filed after the defendant, , ,,,, october the office by issuing false documents on behalf of fictitious persons during the period when he was employed as a trustee, made a salary, salary difference, additional tuition fee, education allowance, etc. it is related to the claim for compensation for allegedly causing damage to the institution by withdrawing these payments from the defendant bank by accruing its rations. The other persons represented as defendants are,,,, persons who have worked for certain periods and have signed the forged documents subject to the case with the title of accrual officer or ita supervisor. It was also stated in the bozma statement dated 07.06.2012 of our Department that these defendants may also be responsible for the damage of the institution due to lack of supervision, and an assessment should be made in this regard. Although the trial was continued by the court in accordance with the decree on the destruction of our Apartment, the expert report received to determine the responsibility of the defendants was respected, HMK No. 6100 297/2. the provision has been established in such a way that it is contrary to the provision of the article. HMK’s 297/2. in accordance with the article “In the concluding part of the provision, without repeating any mention of the grounds, it is necessary to show the debts and recognized rights charged to the parties by the provision issued for each of the claims under the ordinal number in such a way as not to cause obvious, doubt and hesitation”. According to the Court, HMK’s 297. the principles expressed in article the scope of the provision, in consideration of all the evidence about defendants are identified and discussed the responsibilities of each individual respondent, reasoned and execution in a manner that does not attract the provision should be established for while you hesitate, “the expert report that is specified in the specified amount from the direction of each defendant jointly and granting of the defendant to the plaintiff to be taken on the basis of” clear and understandable in the form of non-words in terms of the establishment, and even some judgment on defendants has been established not just because it’s not true, therefore the decision of the Local Court had corruption.
2- According to the reason and form of the violation, the appeals of the plaintiffs’ attorney and some of the defendants’ and defendants’ attorneys who appealed were not considered necessary to be examined at this stage.
Conclusion: It was decided unanimously on 22/06/2016 that the appeal appeals appeals of the plaintiffs and the defendant,,,,,,,,,, the heirs for the reasons described in paragraph (1) above should be formally overturned for the reasons described in paragraph (2); that the appeal fee they paid should be returned to the appellants at the request of the unanimous decision was made on 22/06/2016.
No Comments