T.C.
\nSUPREME
\nGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF LAW
\nE. 2017\/12-1147
\nK. 2017\/1304
\nT. 8.11.2017
\n* Prompt cancellation of the civil servant process by way of complaint ( a creditor
\nIf a lien is requested within the annual period, the same period of one year
\nDemand For Foreclosure In Which The Debtor’s Property Has Not Been Foreclosed
\nForfeiture of the right and removal of the file from Operation
\nDo Not Require \u2013 Creditor Surrogate Borrowers Within A Legal One-Year Period
\nHaving requested the confiscation of the assets and the salary of the debtor
\nThe Right Of The Creditor To Demand Lien Does Not Fall\/Need For Renewal Fee
\nNo Direct Lien May Be Requested )
\n* Right to demand Lien (from the date of notification of Payment Order
\nLien Within A One-Year Term Of Creditor \/ Fall By Passing One Year
\nNo claim or return of Lien claim within this one year
\nIf It Does Not Request Re-Foreclosure, The Follow-Up File Will Be Removed From The Transaction
\nTo Be Removed \u2013 The Debtor’s Property Within A One-Year Period
\nForfeiture Of The Right To Demand Foreclosure
\nNot Required \/ Because The Foreclosure Is Requested Within A Legal One-Year Period
\nThere Is No Need For Renewal Fees And A Direct Lien Can Be Requested )
\n* Request for lien within one year ( same one year)
\nForeclosure Of The Debtor’s Property During The Period Of Foreclosure
\nDropping the right to request and removing the file from the process
\nDo Not Require \u2013 Creditor Surrogate Borrowers Within A Legal One-Year Period
\nHaving requested the confiscation of the assets and the salary of the debtor
\nThe Creditor’s Right To Request Lien Does Not Fall\/Within The Legal One-Year Period
\nSince The Foreclosure Is Requested, There Is No Need For Renewal Fees Directly
\nLien May Be Requested )
\n* Renewal fee (creditor requesting Lien within one-year period
\nIf the debtor’s property is found within the same period of one year
\nForfeiture of the right to demand sequestration, and
\nThat The File Does Not Require Removal From Operation\/The Debtor’s Property
\nThe Request For The Impoundment Is Not In The Nature Of The Request For Renewal \u2013
\nThe Creditor Having Been Legally Requested A Lien Within A One-Year Period
\nWhere The Right To Request Lien Is Not Dropped\/Renewal Order
\nSummary: The Right to demand lien is one year from the date of notification of the payment order.
\nhe falls in passing. Creditor does not claim lien within one-year term
\nor, if the lien request is withdrawn and the lien is repossessed within this one-year period
\nif it does not request, the follow-up file is removed from the process. Follow this case
\nthe file is removed from the process alone; otherwise, execution follow-up is not dropped. Refresh
\nit may request lien in the same follow-up file by making a claim.
\nIf the creditor has requested a lien within a one-year period, the same one-year period
\nthe debtor’s property has not been confiscated during the period to demand foreclosure
\nforfeiture of the right and therefore removal of the follow-up file from the process
\nit does not require.In this case, the debtor’s property to be foreclosed,
\nit does not qualify as a renewal request.
\nThe acting of the creditor is a legal one-year period in which the assets of the debtors and
\nto demand the lien of the creditor by requesting the lien of the debtor’s salary
\nhe didn’t fall right. In this case, the creditor may request a lien again
\nto be notified of the renewal order to the debtor and therefore to receive the renewal fee
\ndirect lien without the need for a creditor renewal
\nyou may ask.<\/p>\n
Lawsuit : cancellation of “civil servant’s action by way of complaint” between parties\u201d
\nBor\u00e7ka execution (Law) at the end of the trial due to his request)
\n10.07.2013 and 2013\/2 days given by the court for dismissal of the complaint E.,
\n2013\/12 K. by the acting of the complainant to review the appeal of the numbered decision
\nthe court of Appeals on request 12. 05.12.2013 day of the law office and
\n2013\/31165 E., 2013\/38701 K. by numbered decision,
\n“…The creditor’s right to demand lien, as of the date of notification of the payment order
\none year passes and falls (first article 78\/2.C.1). Follow-up file in this case
\nremoved from Operation (md.78\/4) creditor, to be able to request lien
\nrequest for renewal and this request should be notified to the debtor. Another
\n5 of the same item from the side. paragraph; follow-up not based on the notice
\nit is envisaged that tuition will be taken upon request for renewal.
\nIn the concrete case, the Payment Order Number 7, for example, is given to the first of the debtors.
\nOn 18.9.2009, second on 30.9.2009,third on 01.10.2009
\nnotified by the creditor on 10.3.2010 and 26.05.2010
\nin their history, that is, within a legal period of one year, the assets of the debtors and
\nthe debtor … ‘ s salary has been requested to foreclose, the creditor \u201clien request
\nthe right ” has not fallen. In this case, the creditor may request a lien again
\nfor iik’s 78\/5. notification of renewal order to debtor in accordance with article and
\ntherefore, there is no need for renewal fees. In other words,
\nthe creditor may seek foreclosure directly without requesting renewal.
\nIik’s 110\/3. expenses such as placing and storing the confiscation in the article
\nit is held that the creditor is responsible. Refresh the aforementioned edit
\napplication in concrete case as it is not related to mortar and foreclosure request period
\nhas no place.
\nThen, the court should accept the complaint and decide whether it should be rejected.
\nis isabetsiz\u2026\u201d
\ngrounds to be redacted and the file to be turned back instead
\nat the end of the trial, the court resisted the earlier decision.
\nAppeal during the period of the decision to resist by examining the General Assembly of the law
\nas soon as it is understood that it has been done and the papers in the file have been read,
\ninterviewed:
\nDecision: the request is related to the request for cancellation of the civil servant process by way of complaint.
\nThe complainant’s Deputy, against the debtors who complained, at the Bor\u00e7ka Enforcement office
\nOn 11.09.2009, the execution without a warrant was initiated, and the payment order
\nall of the debtors have been notified, as there is no objection within the period
\nthe follow-up has been finalised, with many enforcement actions on debtors
\nthat it was performed, but in the file, in the relevant articles of the ICJ 2004
\nsince no foreclosure process has been performed during the specified period,
\nthe decision to abolish the liens, granted on 22.04.2013
\nalthough the foreclosure process was requested by the petition, the file was renewed first.,
\nthe application for renewal and the decision in the form of payment of cash fees should be made
\nthat it was taken, that the process of the Bor\u00e7ka Executive Office was unfair, and that it was directed to public order
\nfollow-up of Bor\u00e7ka Executive Office No. 2009\/921
\n\u201cdecision Tensip record\u201d dated 22.04.2013 issued from file
\ncancellation of the decision and renewal of the file without charge
\nhe must have filed a complaint.
\nFollow-up No. 2009\/921 of the Bor\u00e7ka Executive Office subject to the case by the Local Court
\nrequest for lien on 10.03.2010 of the creditor’s proxy in the file
\nlocated, it belongs to borrowers on 34 Tk 498 and 34 ZP 7400 plate
\nvehicles numbered on 11.04.2010 confiscated, after which the creditor
\nhis deputy requested the sequestration of the debtor’s salary on 26.05.2010
\nthere is no information or documentation in the file indicating that this seizure was carried out.,
\nafter this date, the creditor’s attorney does not have any claim in the file,
\nthe date of the sale of the vehicles according to the date of the confiscation of the vehicles is 11.04.2011
\nuntil it is possible to request, request foreclosure by this date
\nsince it was not, it would be necessary to acknowledge that the foreclosure fell on that date.,
\nthe file has been removed from the treatment since 11.04.2011 when the foreclosure was dropped
\nSince more than a year has passed until 12.12.2012
\nthere were no irregularities in his removal from office.,
\nIIK 78\/5 if the file removed from the treatment is requested to be renewed
\nin accordance with the provisions of the article, the re-tuition will be taken, renewal fees
\nExecutive Office for refusal of renewal request due to non-payment
\ndecision to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that its operation is in accordance with the law
\nthe decision has been made by the special Office on the appeal of the complainant’s attorney
\nthe grounds described in the title section above are distorted.
\nThe court’s decision to resist by repeating the previous reasons
\nhas been given.
\nThe decision to resist was appealed by the acting complainant.
\nDispute before the General Assembly of law by way of resistance, 78\/2 of the ICJ
\nand 4. the legal requirement in its paragraphs (from the notification of the payment order to a
\nif a lien has been requested within the year)
\nat the point where the file can be removed from the process for reasons
\nis collected.<\/p>\n
As is known, the right of the creditor to request lien is subject to a period of one year. Foreclosure
\nthe right to request is one year after the notification of the payment order.
\nit falls. (Iik’s 78\/2. article C.1) the creditor has a one-year term (iik’s 78\/2. md.)
\nhe does not claim a lien in it or claim a lien (which he did within a year)
\nit does not take back or claim for repossession within this (same) one-year period.
\nif the trace file is removed from the process. (78\/4 md.) Follow-up file in this case
\nit is removed from the transaction alone; otherwise the execution follow-up will not drop. So execution follow-up derdest
\nit continues to stay. In this case it is the same by requesting renewal
\nhe might want a lien on the tracking file. (78\/5 md.)
\nIf the creditor has requested a lien within a one-year period,
\nin the same one-year period (or even later) the debtor’s property
\nnot being able to foreclose the right to demand foreclosure and therefore follow-up
\nit does not require that the file be removed from the process. In this case, execution follow-up derdest
\nit continues to remain and has done so within the one-year term of the creditor
\nin accordance with the lien request (after a year has passed)
\nhis request for impoundment is 78\/5 of the enforcement and Bankruptcy Code. in the sense of substance
\nit does not qualify as a renewal request. So in this case, the creditor is charged again
\nthere is no need for payment and notification of the request to the debtor. (Dry B.: Enforcement and Bankruptcy
\nEI Book of law, 2013, 2. Edition, sh 414, 415).
\nExample in concrete case 7 Payment order to the first of the debtors 18.9.2009
\non, second on 30.9.2009,third on 01.10.2009
\nthe creditor’s attorney has been notified of the debtors within a statutory one-year period.
\nhaving requested the confiscation of the assets and the salary of the debtor
\nthe creditor’s right to seek foreclosure is not diminished. In this case the creditor
\n78\/5 of the ICJ so that it can seek foreclosure again. to the debtor in accordance with the clause
\nneed to be notified of the renewal order and therefore to receive renewal fees
\nthere is no. In other words, without the creditor requesting renewal
\nhe could seek foreclosure directly.
\nIn this case, the Local Court, law adopted by the General Assembly
\nWhile the decision to break the special circle should be obeyed, the previous one with the wrongful justification
\nresisting the decision is procedural and against the law.
\nTherefore, the decision to resist must be broken.
\nConclusion: the decision of the complainant’s attorney to resist with the acceptance of the appeal appeals
\nThe reasons cited in the decision to disrupt the private apartment,
\nif requested, appeal to refund of the advance fee to the Depositor, correction of decision
\nto be clear, a unanimous decision was made on 08.11.2017.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. SUPREME GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF LAW E. 2017\/12-1147 K. 2017\/1304 T. 8.11.2017 * Prompt cancellation of the civil servant process by way of complaint ( a creditor If a lien is requested within the annual period, the same period of one year Demand For Foreclosure…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[217,223,220,218,290],"yoast_head":"\n