26 Nov THE CASE ARISING FROM THE WORK CONTRACT – THE NEED TO BE DECIDED ACCORDING TO THE RESULT BY OBTAINING AN ADDITION REPORT FROM EXPERTS ON THE IMPACT OF CONSTRUCTION SITE GROWTH AND THE DISMISSAL OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY ON THE DURATION – THE VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION
T.C SUPREME COURT 15.Law Department, Base: 2019 / 2119 Decision: 2020 / 662 Decision Date: 19.02.2020
ABSTRACT: Although the plaintiff-defendant of the merged file explained that the contractor was decommissioned from his/her proxy by the land owners during the continuation of the construction and therefore there was a delay, it is understood that there was no review by the court on this issue. The growth of the construction area court about the impact additional expense and expenditure report for the period should be decided according to the results obtained from experts review an incomplete while not as requested in the petition decision was correct under the terms of the numbers of independent parts with different part numbers because there is no clarity on what grounds an independent decision about what is on the grounds of corruption was approved when it should incorrectly when understood through the examination this time, plaintiff-file combined with the acceptance of the request for the correction of the decision of the defendant, the Supreme Court 23. It has been deemed appropriate that the decision of the Legal Department … be overturned by removing the decree on approval of the decision.
(492 pp. K. m. 42)
Plaintiff … and defendants … Heirs 1-… 2-… 3-… 4-… 5-… 6-…, in the case No. 780/2013, the plaintiffs … the Heirs of the merged 1-… 2-… 3-… 4-… 5-… 6-… because of the case between the defendant and the dec … 3. Issued by the Court of First Instance on 24.11.2015 day and 2010/134 E.-2015/561 K. ratifying the provision No. 23. The Law Department has 26.02.2019 days and 2016/1932 E.-2019/706 K. a request for correction of the decision was made by the plaintiff-defendant’s deputy in the unified file against the numbered statement, and it was understood that the decision was made within the time limit of the correction petition, but the papers in the file were read and considered as necessary:
decision
The main and merged case is construction for the floor
23. the Supreme Court of Cassation on the appeal of the decision made by the plaintiff-plaintiff of the merged file on the partial acceptance of the original case by the court and the rejection of the merged case on the cancellation and registration of the title deed arising from the contract>. A request for correction of the decision was made by the plaintiff-unified file plaintiff against the approval decision No. 2019/706 of 2016/1932 of 26.02.2019 dated 2016/2019 issued by the Law Department.Although, as a rule, the request for correction of the decision must be examined by the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, which conducts the appeal review; By the decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation of the Great General Assembly on Dec. 09.02.2018 day 2018/1 on the division of labor, the land share provision for construction construction
the duty of examining the appeals or decision correction requests in the files arising from the contract and coming to the Supreme Court with a request for appeal or decision correction after 01.07.2016 The Supreme Court 15. Since the decision was submitted to the Legal Department, the request for correction was examined by our Department.
1-According to the articles in the file, the requisite reasons specified in the court decisition and adopted in the Supreme Court decision, and especially between the parties
5 of the contract. article 14, in which there is a provision “according to the zoning situation that the municipality will provide, the parties will receive apartments in accordance with the rates”. in the article “in case of any change in the construction m2 that can be made in case of a change in zoning …. the apartments of the dec of the plot are available
it will remain the same as in the contract. The number of apartments that fall into the contractor’s share will be reduced and increased.” where there is a provision, these provisions are contradictory provisions and
5, which has priority in the ranking by the court, since there is no separate provision on which one will be given priority if there are conflicting provisions in the contract. based on the article
according to the share ratio in the contract, there was no mistake in making the decision to cancel and register the title deed, of course, the plaintiff’s requests for correction of other decisions that fell outside the scope of the following paragraph were rejected, since it was found that a lawsuit could also be filed when the settlement was received in relation to the 2 apartments left as collateral.
2-In the case of the plaintiff contractor, the defendant is the owner of the land plot and the dec decking arranged between them in the construction
according to the agreement, the deed of partition numbers in the petition with the cancellation of the registration on behalf of the independent reporting 22 and wanted to give a decision, the defendant zoning of the land owner will have a share due to the increase in the defense of the denial decision by explaining that the independent sections of the case wanted to give the file required delivery in the case of combined apartments
stating that the contract has not been completed within the agreed time, the plaintiff-defendant of the merged file has asked the contractor to decide on the collection of the delay compensation. The court decided to partially accept the original case and to accept the merged case. Organized between the parties dec
the contract stipulates that the construction
it has been decided that the construction permit will be obtained within 3 months from the date of the contract and completed within 18 months, that is, on 06.11.2009. According to the scope of the file, it is understood that the construction area was enlarged by obtaining a renovation permit after the construction of the construction started. Therefore, it is imperative to take into account the effect of the expansion of the construction site on the duration. On the other hand, although the plaintiff-defendant in the merged file explained that the contractor was decommissioned by the land owners as a proxy during the continuation of the construction, there was a delay for this reason, it is understood that the court did not conduct an examination on this issue either. The growth of the construction area court about the impact additional expense and expenditure report for the period should be decided according to the results obtained from experts review an incomplete while not as requested in the petition decision was correct under the terms of the numbers of independent parts with different part numbers because there is no clarity on what grounds an independent decision about what is on the grounds of corruption was approved when it should incorrectly when understood through the examination this time, plaintiff-file combined with the acceptance of the request for the correction of the decision of the defendant, the Supreme Court 23. It was deemed appropriate to cancel the approval decision No. 2016/706 of the Law Department based on 2016/1932 and to overturn the decision.
CONCLUSION: The above 1. for the reasons described in paragraph 2, the plaintiff-the refusal of the defendant’s other requests for correction of the decision of the merged file, 2. 23. the Supreme Court of Cassation with the adoption of requests for correction of the decision for the reasons described in paragraph. 11 Of the Law No. 5766 on the cancellation of the approval decree No. 2016/1932 of the Law Department dated 26.02.2019 on the approval of Decision No. 706 of 2019/26.02.2019 on the DETERIORATION of the decision. in accordance with the amendment made to the article, it was decided unanimously on 19.02.2020 to deduct the application fee of the Supreme Court of 143.50 TL, which must be received in accordance with Article 42/2-d of the Fees Code, refund the excess appeal fee, if any, to the plaintiff-merged file defendant, refund the decision correction advance fee paid to the plaintiff-merged file defendant who wants to correct the decision on request, on the plaintiff-merged file defendant who wants to correct the decision. (¤¤)</b
No Comments