THE COMPANY PROPERTY CANNOT BE FORECLOSED ON DUE TO THE PERSONAL DEBT OF THE COMPANY PARTNER - 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
19229
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-19229,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
 

THE COMPANY PROPERTY CANNOT BE FORECLOSED ON DUE TO THE PERSONAL DEBT OF THE COMPANY PARTNER

17 Sep THE COMPANY PROPERTY CANNOT BE FORECLOSED ON DUE TO THE PERSONAL DEBT OF THE COMPANY PARTNER

Posted at 15:05h in General by
0 Likes

8. Civil Department

Part Number: 2016/1136

Decision Number: 2016/1136

“text of jurisprudence”

COURT OF LAW: Executive Law Court
CASE TYPE : Fortification

Upon the request of the appellant, the file related to this work was sent to the Department from the scene and the report organized by the Audit Judge for the case file was reviewed and all the documents contained in the file were read and examined, and the work was discussed and considered as necessary after hearing the report organized by the Audit Judge for the case file:

DECISION

Plaintiff 3.on 04/06/2013, the deputy person requested and sued for the decision to remove the foreclosure with the acceptance of the claims of the fortification, stating that the assets belonging to the company were foreclosed on by the client, the debtor was a partner of the company, and the goods belonging to the company could not be foreclosed on account of the personal debt of the company partner.
The defendant’s acting creditor, his client and their joint children initiated enforcement proceedings for the collection of alimony, after the foreclosure, the plaintiff requested that the company make a deliberate claim for fortification, intended to prolong the case, and therefore the case be dismissed.
At the end of the trial held by the court, the decision was made to dismiss the fortification case plaintiff 3. the person has been appealed by the company attorney.
33 of HMK No. 6100. in accordance with the article, it belongs to the parties to put forward material events, to make legal qualifications and determine the articles of the law to be applied by the judge. According to the way the claim is put forward, the case is based on the fact that the first person’s 96. et al. according to the articles, the case he filed in accordance with the “ration” is of the nature of a case, and according to this qualification, the Court decided by holding a trial.
The follow-up to the case was initiated due to alimony debt, and the company partner is the debtor’s personal debt. 133 of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102. according to the article, the personal creditors of one of the partners reserves the right to, in accordance with the company’s balance sheet and the company that the share of profits per partner is to be dissolved if the liquidation balance sheet arrangement of shares if the result of the arrangement of the balance sheet liquidation of the debtor or the debtor, the snow will fall and the share belonging to, connected or unconnected shares of the execution and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 in the years to move through or be seized in accordance with the provisions of the other receivables from partner companies to receive, and shall be authorized to be able to garnishment. In addition, since the seizure of the company’s assets due to the personal debt of the debtor’s company partner is contrary to procedure and law, it is not correct to decide to reject the case in writing when it should be accepted.
CONCLUSION: For the reason described above, plaintiff 3. 366 of the second part of the judgment with the acceptance of the appeals of the acting person. and Provisional 3 of HMK No. 6100. article 428 of the Law No. 1086 by sending the article. in accordance with Article 366/3 of the Protocol, the parties agree that the in accordance with the articles, it was unanimously decided on 25.01.2016 that a request for correction of the decision against the announcement could be made within 10 days from the notification of the announcement of the Supreme Court Department and the refund of the 24.30 TL advance fee to the appellant could be made.

Tags:
, , ,
No Comments

Post A Comment

GermanTurkeyRussiaFinlandIran