Supreme Court Decision About Injunctive Relief - AŞIKOĞLU LAW OFFİCE
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
18425
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-18425,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-6.13.0,vc_responsive
 

Supreme Court Decision About Injunctive Relief

01 May Supreme Court Decision About Injunctive Relief

Posted at 00:57h in General by
0 Likes

Supreme Court of the Republic of Turkey 12.Legal Department Basis: 2010 / 32724 Decision: 2011 / 15605 Decision Date: 07.07.2014

Supreme Court Decision

Court : Izmir 4. Executive Law Court

Date: 29/07/2010

Number: 2010/537-2010/1071

After the appeal examination by the creditor within the period of the court decision written above date and number was requested, the file related to this work was sent to the apartment from the scene and was discussed and considered necessary :

About the company owed by the acting creditor Izmir 1.Commercial Court of First Instance dated 29.03.2010 and 2010/312 D.execution follow-up was started by foreclosure on foreign exchange bills on 30.03.2010 with the injunction decision no.of business, the Payment Order No. 10 was notified to the debtor on 01.04.2010, the foreclosure was applied on the basis of the injunction decision on 05.04.2010 at the request of the creditor’s attorney.

Apply to the deputy bailiff’s court the borrower; act like there’s a finalized track of the foreclosure process could not be implemented in the memorandum of lien the lien liens that love was not made and given information about asserting that has requested the cancellation of the preservation process vesting.

Although the follow-up has not been finalized; there is no violation of the procedures and laws in the foreclosure and preservation process made on 05.04.2010 in the face of the finding of a valid injunction foreclosure decision. However, if a lien is made in such a way as to exceed the amount of debt determined in the injunction decision, the debtor may make this matter the subject of a complaint. As a matter of fact, the Debtor also claimed that love was foreclosed on in the complaint petition.

In that case, the court should make a decision according to the result of the rejection of the complaint regarding the cancellation of the foreclosure and retention process and the review in terms of the transcendent foreclosure, while the provision for the acceptance of the request with written justification is not accurate. Conclusion: 366 of the law on enforcement and Bankruptcy for the above-written reasons of the court’s decision with the acceptance of the creditor’s appeals. and 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure. it was decided by unanimous decision on 07/07/2011.

Tags:
, , ,
No Comments

Post A Comment

GermanTurkeyRussiaFinlandIran