T.C. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

15.law office
Base: 2013/6434
Decision: 2014/273
Date of Decision: 15.01.2014

A CASE ARISING FROM A WORK CONTRACT – IN WHICH THE PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY WAIVES THE CASE – IN WHICH THE PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY IS AUTHORIZED TO WAIVE THE CASE IN HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY – IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THE DECISION IS MADE ON THE WAIVER OF THE CASE, THE DECISION MUST BE JUL

SUMMARY: Although the verdict was appealed by the defendant’s attorney, the identity determination was also made … with the petition dated from the transfer, the plaintiff’s attorney U.C.B. The plaintiff’s attorney has waived the case.. Since it is understood that the Notary Public Office is authorized to waive the case in the power of attorney numbered jul; It was deemed appropriate to overturn the decision to ensure that the decision was made on the waiver of the case.

(6098 P. K. m. 470)

Case: Plaintiff Koran Decoration Inc.Mob.San and Tic.Ltd.Şti. with the defendant Natural Hair Care and Beauty Hiz.Ltd.Şti. due to the case between Dec 1. 18.07.2013 day and 2012/126-2013/125 The examination of the provision issued by the Commercial Court of First Instance by the Supreme Court was requested by the defendant’s deputy, and the papers in the file were read and considered as necessary:

Decision: Although the verdict was appealed by the defendant’s attorney, the identity determination was also made on the petition dated 27.12.2013 by the plaintiff’s Attorney U. C.6. the plaintiff’s attorney Besiktas waived the case. Since it is understood that the Notary Public Office is authorized to waive the case in the power of attorney No. 09260 evmiye dated 02.03.2009 jul; It was deemed appropriate to overturn the decision to ensure that the decision was made on the waiver of the case.

Conclusion: It was decided unanimously on 15.01.2014 that the decision should be OVERTURNED due to the waiver for the reasons described above, that there is no place for the defendant’s attorney to examine the appeals for the reason of the reversal for the time being, that the appeal and the Court of Cassation advance fees he paid should be returned to the defendant who appealed on request.