T.C. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
11.law office
Base: 2016/6246
Decision: 2016/6191
Date of Decision: 06.06.2016
RECEIVABLES CASE – THERE IS NO DULY FILED APPEAL REQUEST DURING THE NOTICE PERIOD – THERE IS NO LEGAL BENEFIT IN APPEALING THE PROVISION REJECTION OF THE APPEALS REQUESTS OF THE TSMF PROXIES WHO HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED THAT THEY HAVE NO LEGAL INTEREST IN APPEALING THE PROVISION – APPROVAL OF THE PROVISION
SUMMARY: There was no duly filed appeal request during the notice period, as well as no provision against it, which was indicated by the adjective reported in the decision title, and because there was no legal interest in appealing the decision, it was necessary to decide on the rejection of the appeals requests of the notified and TSMF deputies.
(6502 Pp. K. m. 3, 73)
Case and Decision: In a case between the parties dec.. 15/12/2015 trade date, and is actually given by the court 2015/1012-examination of Defendant No. yargitayca 2015/869 decision, which in turn owned the petition filed by attorneys and … being understood that within the period of Appeal is given, the audit report for the judge to file a claim held by a rested, and again within the file petitions, pleadings, and trial proceedings and all documents are read and analyzed, after the nature of the business is discussed, considered:
Acting plaintiff; In accordance with the agreement on the transfer of receivables arranged between his client and the plaintiff, his client was decriminalized by the plaintiff on 18.10.1999 …bank A.That he will receive a deposit of 9,931.00 TL deposited in Ş, that the respondent bank will take over …bank A.Claiming that he is responsible for being the successor of Ş, he requested and sued to be decided on the collection of TL 9,931.00 from the defendant together with the highest interest to be processed as of 18.10.1999.
Defendant … …. his deputy asked for a dismissal of the case, arguing that he was actually responsible for the debt.
According to the scope of the entire file filed by the court, the dispute is caused by a banking transaction and is subject to Article 3/k-1 and 73 of Law No. 6502. in accordance with the articles, it was decided to dismiss the case due to duty on the grounds that the Consumer Court is in charge.
The defendant’s deputy, the deputy who was notified, and the deputy who was notified appealed the decision.
1- It was found that the response to the appeal and the appeal petition of the notified deputy were not recorded in the appeal book, and the appeal fee was also not deposited. In addition, there is no lawsuit filed against the whistleblower and the court, as well as those referred to in the court’s decision are shown in the title of the whistleblower and decision, and no provision has been made against the whistleblowers. In that case, it was necessary to decide whether to reject the appeals of TSMF deputies who were notified that there was no duly filed appeal request during the period of the notice, as well as no provision against it, which was indicated by the adjective reported in the title of the decision, and that there was no legal interest in appealing the judgment.
2- As for the examination of the appeals of the defendant’s deputy; According to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision was based, the reasons for the necessity, it was necessary to decide on the rejection of all appeals of the defendant’s deputy.
Conclusion: the above (1) for reasons that are described in the numbered paragraphs, appeals the denial of their attorneys, and … they are to be reported, (2) for reasons that are described in numbered paragraphs, the defendant counsel for the place of all appeals that are not seen in the rejection of the appeal procedures and the provision APPROVED in accordance with the law, the alarm is not the place to be … owned and received from tuition, paid the appeal fees in advance of a request for appeal in the event of a return, it was decided unanimously on 06.06.2016.
