30 Jan There Must Be a Valid Foreclosure In The Detinue Case
Plaintiff 3. acting person,…… filling plant located within the boundaries of the business Chief, et al. 3 with the debtor requesting permission for its construction. an agreement on the construction and operation of a filling facility between people, the creditor of the water resource ……He was hired at 22.6.2007,…… With this type of 11433 and the Regional Directorate of the date 02/09/2010, the borrower subsequent to the contract notarized written consent of the company be given in a month to put a price to pay and if it is decided to cancel due to a permissions permission with the cancellation of the undertaking in accordance with the provisions of the debtor’s factory …… the ownership of property, and passed to the client, because the facility is an integral part of mahcuz, with the acceptance of the lawsuit, he asked for the foreclosures to be lifted.
The defendant is the acting creditor, with the debtor 3. made between the person, … ‘ s 9. he argued that at the end of the leave period, it was decided that the facilities made within the scope of the project subject to leave would be transferred to the savings of the general directorate, but that the embarrassed ones were not included in the concept and scope of the facility should be decided to reject the case.
In court, plaintiff 3. the person, the borrower agreed to the construction and operation of water filling facility arranged with the respective company,…… The writings of the Regional Directorate of the company within a period of one month in the written contract with defendant to be notarized and to put a price to pay, because the cancellation of the permits,the covenants in “……” and “Resort” with the words written it is, therefore, the parties of the period at the end of the business in business …… and all other equipment (including machines) that would pass the savings of the General Directorate of the agreed, it was decided to accept the case, remove the foreclosures, and the decision was appealed by the defendant’s creditor on the grounds that the word facility covered the embarrassed goods.
The case is the third person’s 96. et al. it relates to the claim of fortification based on its substances.
Having a valid lien in fortification cases is a condition of the case, and re’sen must be observed at every stage of the trial until the provision is finalized.
Subject of the lawsuit is the 106th amendment of the iik, which is in force as of the date of the foreclosure settlement dated 29.06.2010.-110. according to their articles, the creditor may request that the foreclosed property be sold within 1 year of the foreclosure. First 110. according to the article, if the sale of the goods is not requested within the legal period, the lien on that goods is removed. Accordingly, the subject of the case dated as of the date of mahcuz on 29.06.2010 case with the history of foreclosures 26.6.2012 fall, in consideration of the lack of legal actions when you should be in writing in the prerequisite of denial of the right to the legal actions decided upon the adoption of the provision therefore had to decide to corruption.
Conclusion: for the reasons described above, the defendant accepted the appeal of the creditor’s proxy and the provision 366 and 6100 of HMK provisional 3. article 428 of Humk No. 1086. deterioration in accordance with article 366/3 of the iik by the parties. in accordance with the article, The Court of Cassation can request a correction of the decision within 10 days from the notification of the application, the return of the advance fee to the appellant in case of request, was unanimously decided on 01.10.2018.