Summary:

An objection to the debt and signature must be made to the execution Court within five days of the follow-up based on the bill of exchange.

T.C.
Supreme
General Assembly Of Law

Principal No: 2012/806
Decision No: 2013/286
K. Historical:

(….. Iik’s 168/5.in accordance with the clause, the debtor’s signature on the deed

it is mandatory to notify the enforcement court within five days that it is not owed or that the debt has been redeemed or that the debt has been reprieved or that the claim has expired or that it has any objections to the authority.

In the concrete case, it is seen that the Payment Order Number 10 for the debtor was notified on 27.12.2010, and on 21.02.2011 the debtor applied to the execution court and demanded that the cancellation of the follow-up be decided due to the absence of his signature and title of indebtedness in the bonds.

Since no irregularities in the payment order notification process have been asserted, the court has ruled that the application should be submitted to Article 168 of the ICJ. in accordance with the legal five-day period, the decision to reject the appeal due to the expiration of time, instead of the debtor’s passive animosity in pursuit of the driver’s license and this complaint is considered to be indefinitely and written decision on the cancellation of the follow-up is not accurate…) with the reason that the case was overturned and

Appellant: acting defendant

RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE LAW

The law was examined by the General Assembly after it was understood that the decision to resist was appealed during the period and the papers in the file were read.:

The case relates to the cancellation of the proceedings.

A study on the court paperwork; in the execution file, the claimant is neither the beneficiary nor the claimant nor the claimant in the certified copies of the deed, the law of follow-up does not give consent to follow-up against a person who has not been listed as debtor at any stage of the bills of exchange, and there is no possibility of follow-up against a person due to the absence of passive, with the acceptance of the lawsuit filed on the grounds that it is possible to request the cancellation of the proceedings due to the fact that the animosity is related to public order and the absence of passive animosity due to the follow-up carried out against the complainant in accordance with the 170 a of the ICJ md.si in accordance with the decision to cancel and the request for compensation is rejected.

Upon the appeal of the defendant’s attorney, the decision of the special office was broken by the reason of the text of the title section above.

In court;”….In case 170, the plaintiff requested the iptil of the follow-up by betting that the signature used in the turnover sequence is not related to him, so that the bill of exchange cannot be binding, and that the cancellation request of the client is a claim of non-animosity arising from the denial of the signature and breaking the relationship between the subject and the subject not in the sense of Article 170/a of the ICJ, the person to whom a dispute referred to in Article 170/A is not a signature on the deed, stating that there is no name of the complainant can not apply for the responsibility of stating that there is a complaint in the middle, the public order is related to the argument” the decision is made.

The defendant has brought the verdict to appeal.

The dispute before the General Assembly of law is referred to in Article 168 of the claimant’s request.the objection to the signature and debt in the deed stated in the article is collected at the point of whether it is a complaint based on Article 170/a (the debtor’s complaint in terms of foreign exchange law), whether it is a 5-day period to be considered accordingly, or whether it is subject to an indefinite complaint, as a result, whether it is

Istanbul 8. When the execution Directorate’s 2010/31686 based file is examined; the defendant is the creditor S. Food etc. Co. Ltd.by non-litigation B. Pastry and breadmaking Food San. Tic. A.P.with plaintiff B.G. and off the case, E. Food hotels and Patisserie etc. Co. Ltd. against 15.239.63 TL. for total receivables, 3.000 TL dated 11.06.2010. the follow-up request dated 22.12.2010 and the payment order of the same date and the basis documents were followed by the lien which is specific to the exchange notes based on 5 bills with a price.G.it is understood that it was notified to the council on 27.12.2010.

The plaintiff, on the other hand, has made a follow-up based on the foreign exchange deed against him by the defendant company with the petition dated 21.02.2011 fee, and has been shown as debtor in the follow-up. etc. A.P. he demanded 40% compensation with the cancellation of the follow-up by claiming that he is the signature authority authorized to represent by joint signature, that he does not have the endorsement of the foreign exchange certificates based on the follow-up, that he cannot be a party to the follow-up, that the signature on the company stamp does not belong to him, that he

As is known, the Enforcement Bankruptcy Act No. 168 of 2004. in the article, the issues to be written to the payment order in the follow-up via foreclosure for foreign exchange promissory notes are arranged. Accordingly; 3. if the deed which is based on the follow-up in the paragraph does not have the character of exchange bill, it is necessary to complain to the authority within five days; 4. if the signature on the bill of exchange does not belong to him, he should inform the execution court with a petition within five days.; otherwise, the signature on the bill of exchange will be deemed Sadir from him in the execution follow-up in accordance with this chapter and if he denies his signature unfairly, the subject of follow-up based on the said year will be sentenced to a fine of ten percent, and if the authority does not bring a decision on the acceptance of the appeal; 5.it is stated that if there is no debtor or if the debt has been redeemed or the debt has been reprieved or the claim has expired, or if the authority does not bring a decision on the acceptance of the objection from the authority by submitting a petition to the execution court within five days with the reasons for the objection, the

In the concrete case, the plaintiff has no objection to the irregularities of the payment order. The plaintiff objected to the subsidiary debt and the signature. The payment order was notified to the plaintiff on 27.12.2010, and the case was filed on 21.02.2011 and the order was submitted to the claimant on 168. since the 5-day period arranged in the article has passed, the special Office which refers to the need for rejection due to the expiration of the objection is in place for the annulment notice.

For the reasons described, on the grounds stated in the decree of breaking the special office, while the decree of breaking the law adopted by the General Assembly should be obeyed, it is against the procedure and the law to resist the previous decision. Therefore, the decision to resist must be broken.

RESULT

With the acceptance of the appellate appeals of the defendant’s deputy, the decision to resist for the reasons shown in the decision to break the special Circle is the 30th article of Law No. 6217. article 429 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 1086 which is being applied with the attribution of “provisional Article 3” added to the law of Civil Procedure No. 6100. deterioration in accordance with the clause…