Categories: General

Supreme Court Decision On Auction Specification

Supreme Court of the Republic of Turkey 12.Legal Department Basis: 2010 / 33354 Decision: 2011 / 15606 Decision Date: 07.07.2014

Supreme Court Decision

Court: Küçükçekmece 1. Executive Law Court

Date: 24/06/2010

Number: 2009/580-2010/737

Above, the date and number of the written court decision within the period of the appeal examination by the debtor after the request of the file related to this work was sent to the apartment from the scene and the need was discussed and considered :

124/3 Of The Executive Bankruptcy Code. according to the article, it is written in the specification that those who will participate in the increase must deposit a pey fund or a letter of guarantee of a National Bank in relation to twenty percent of the Muhammad value of the real estate. 124/4 of the same act. according to the article, the creditor who has the right to the real estate for sale will receive, and in the relative raddah written in the above paragraph, if he is a subsidiary to increase, he will also not seek Pey funds and collateral.

In a concrete case, the value of the real estate subject to sale is 180,000 UAH according to the expert report dated 15.08.2008. as determined, 36,000 UAH of collateral to be obtained for participation in the auction announcement and increase in the real estate specification. it has been determined that. In this case, it is necessary to deposit the collateral determined to participate in the tender. If the amount of credit of the file creditor is sufficient to cover the guarantee, no collateral is required. If the amount of receivables is not sufficient to cover the guarantee, in this case the missing part is completed and accepted to tender.

In that case, the court examined the complaint in this direction and determined whether the creditor’s claim on the Tender Date met the amount of collateral, while a decision should be made according to the result that would occur, it was not considered correct to go to the conclusion in writing with the incomplete review.

Conclusion: 366 of the law on enforcement and Bankruptcy for the above-written reasons of the court’s decision on the acceptance of the debtor’s appeals. and 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure. it was decided by unanimous decision on 07/07/2011.

Aşıkoğlu Law Office

Recent Posts

A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION UNDER THE WORKPLACE INSURANCE POLICY, WHICH ALSO INCLUDES EARTHQUAKE COVERAGE

17. Law Office 2018/1547 E. , 2018/12611 K. “text of jurisprudence” COURT : Court of…

2 years ago

REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF EVIDENCE AND DECISION

ARTICLE 402 OF THE CCP (1) The request for the determination of evidence shall be…

2 years ago

DETERMINATION OF EVIDENCE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HMK

ARTICLE 400 OF THE Civil Procedure Code (1) Each of the Parties may request that…

2 years ago

CHILDREN RECEIVE COMPENSATION FOR DEPRIVATION OF SUPPORT DUE TO PARENTS

SUPPORT OF PARENTS TO THEIR CHILDREN 1- GENERAL RULE According to the decisions of the…

2 years ago

COUNCIL OF STATE DECISION ON EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE

11. Apartment 2001/2549 E. , 2005/183 K . “text of jurisprudence” T.C. COUNCIL OF STATE…

2 years ago

COMPENSATION LAWSUIT FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE EARTHQUAKE

17. Law Office 2016/11461 E. , 2019/7615 K. “text of jurisprudence” COURT : Court of…

2 years ago