T.C. SUPREME<\/p>\n
15.Legal Department
\nMainly: 2013\/6434
\nDecision: 2014\/273
\nDecision Date: 15.01.2014<\/p>\n
CASE ARISING FROM THE WORK CONTRACT \u2013 WHERE THE PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY WAIVES THE CASE \u2013 WHERE THE PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY IS AUTHORIZED TO WAIVE THE CASE IN THE POWER OF ATTORNEY \u2013 THE NEED FOR A VIOLATION OF THE DECISION TO ENSURE THAT THE DECISION TO WAIVE THE CASE IS MADE<\/p>\n
Summary: Although the sentence has been appealed by the defendant’s attorney; identification has also been made … O.’s waiving the case, the plaintiff’s attorney B.. As it was understood that the notary public was authorized to waive the case in the power of attorney No.of duty; it was considered appropriate to break the decision to ensure that the decision was made to waive the case.<\/p>\n
(6098 P. K. m. 470)<\/p>\n
Case: Plaintiff Koran Decoration In\u015f.Mob.San and Tic.Co.Ltd. the defendant with Natural Hair Care and beauty speed.Co.Ltd. 1 for the case of Istanbul. 18.07.2013 day issued by The Commercial Court of First Instance and 2012\/126-2013\/125 by the Supreme Court to examine the provision requested by the defendant’s attorney, the documents in the file were read and considered necessary:<\/p>\n
Decision: although the provision has been appealed by the defendant’s attorney; with the petition dated 27.12.2013 remittance, which was also identified, the plaintiff’s attorney U. O.the plaintiff’s attorney Besiktas 6, who waived the lawsuit. Since it is understood that the notary public is authorized to waive the case in the power of attorney 09260 of 02.03.2009; it was found appropriate to disrupt the decision to ensure that the decision to waive the case was made.<\/p>\n
Conclusion: for the reasons described above, the decision was overturned due to fergat, according to the reason for the overturning, there is no place for the defendant’s attorney to review the appeals, the advance fees he paid for the appeal and appeal to the Supreme Court were returned to the appellant on request, on 15.01.2014, it was unanimously decided.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. SUPREME 15.Legal Department Mainly: 2013\/6434 Decision: 2014\/273 Decision Date: 15.01.2014 CASE ARISING FROM THE WORK CONTRACT \u2013 WHERE THE PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY WAIVES THE CASE \u2013 WHERE THE PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY IS AUTHORIZED TO WAIVE THE CASE IN THE POWER OF ATTORNEY \u2013 THE NEED FOR…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[217,223,220,218,332],"yoast_head":"\n