T.C. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT<\/p>\n
15.law office
\nIssue: 2015\/4549
\nDecision: 2016\/3863
\nDate of Decision: 14.07.2016<\/p>\n
CASE OF COLLECTION OF RECEIVABLES – THE NEED TO JUDGE THE FEES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES IN CASES AS A VICTIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MINIMUM WAGE TARIFF OF THE LAWYER \u2013 THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IS HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RELATIVE ATTORNEY’S FEE – VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION<\/p>\n
SUMMARY: Registration acceptance cases are related to the request to register the receivable at the bankruptcy table; Since it is not intended to pay a certain amount, the fee and power of attorney in these cases must be ruled as the victim in accordance with the Minimum Wage Tariff of the Lawyer. Although the court decided to accept the registration, it required the provision to be overturned because it was not correct to hold the bankruptcy court responsible for the relative proxy fee.<\/p>\n
(6100 pp. K. Late. m. 3)<\/p>\n
Case and Decision: Plaintiff .. Metal and Construction. Renown. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. defendants with 1-.. Insh. A.Sh. Bankruptcy Administration 2-… 3-.. Insh. Taah. Em. Pet. Tumor. From. San and Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. Bankruptcy administration officers 1-Lawyer .. 2-.. 3-.. because of the lawsuit between Dec.. Issued by the Commercial Court of First Instance.. days and .. our Apartment, which has approved the numbered provision.. days and .. the plaintiff and the defendant are acting as plaintiffs against the numbered decree.. Insh. A.Sh. It was understood that the decision was requested to be corrected by the deputy Bankruptcy Administration and the decision correction petitions were granted within the period of time, but the papers in the file were read and considered as necessary:<\/p>\n
The lawsuit was filed with the request to decide on the collection of the collateral receivable, the court rejected the lawsuit against the defendant, and the other defendants will accept the collection from the defendants that you will receive with the acceptance of the collection, provided that it does not recur in the collection.. Insh. A.Sh. It was decided to register with the Bankruptcy Table, the decision was made between the plaintiff and the defendant …. A.Sh. Upon appeal by the Bankruptcy Administration, the appeal requests were rejected and approved by our Department, and the file was re-examined with the request of the plaintiff and defendant bankruptcy administration to correct the decision.<\/p>\n
1-According to the articles in the file, the reasons specified in the court decision and adopted in the decision of the Supreme Court, all the plaintiff’s requests for correction of other decisions that fall outside the scope of the following paragraph of the defendant bankruptcy administration should be rejected.<\/p>\n
2-From the court’s decision, the plaintiff will receive 117,000.00 TL, which he received from the contractor.. Insh. A.Sh.due to the fact that the execution has turned into a registration acceptance case in accordance with Articles 235 and further of the Bankruptcy Code, and since the bankruptcy decision has also been finalized, it has been decided to register the bet at the bankruptcy table. Registration acceptance cases are related to the request to register the receivable at the bankruptcy table; Since it is not intended to pay a certain amount, in these cases, the fee and power of attorney must be ruled as the victim in accordance with the Minimum Wage Tariff of the Lawyer. Although the court decided to accept the registration, it is not correct to hold the bankruptcy court liable for the relative proxy fee, and since this issue does not require a retrial, it should be corrected and approved, while it is understood in the review conducted this time that the provision was approved, the defendant accepted the bankruptcy administration’s request to correct the decision and the section of paragraph 6100 on the relative proxy fee of the HMK’s temporary 3. according to Article 438\/VII of HUMK No. 1086. it has been found appropriate to be corrected and approved in accordance with the article.<\/p>\n
Conclusion: The above 1. all of the plaintiffs for the reasons described in I, the defendant …. A.Sh. Refusal of other decision correction requests of the Bankruptcy Court, 2. in accordance with the paragraph of our apartment with the acceptance of the request for correction of the decision of the bankruptcy administration of the defendant.. days and .. Decision No. 7 of the court decision partially repealing the approval decision. in the subparagraph “Defendants .. Insh. A.Sh. according to the Minimum Wage Tariff of the Lawyer, the defendant of the attorney’s fee of 1,500.00 TL has been removed from the \u201dbankruptcy desk\u201c section and the same paragraph has been continued …. A.Sh. To be collected from the Bankruptcy Table and paid to the plaintiff by writing the \u201dword index” and to be CORRECTED and APPROVED in this amended form of the provision, 442 of the HUMK. in accordance with article 248.00, with a fine of TL 3.20, the balance of the refusal fee of TL 248.00 is charged to the plaintiff who wants to correct the decision, the defendant who wants to correct the decision on request of the appeal and decision correction advance fees that he pays.. A.Sh. It was unanimously decided to return it to the Bankruptcy Administration on 14.07.2016<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT 15.law office Issue: 2015\/4549 Decision: 2016\/3863 Date of Decision: 14.07.2016 CASE OF COLLECTION OF RECEIVABLES – THE NEED TO JUDGE THE FEES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES IN CASES AS A VICTIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MINIMUM WAGE TARIFF OF…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1,211],"tags":[217,223,220,218,1165],"yoast_head":"\n