T.C SUPREME COURT 12.Legal Department Base: 2010/ 33360 Decision: 2011 / 15607 Decision Date: 07.07.2014

The Decision of the Supreme Court

COURT : Kucukcekmece 1. Executive Civil Court

DATE : 24/09/2010

NUMBER : 2010/1150-2010/1039

Upon the request of the debtor for the examination of the appellant within the time limit of the court decision with the date and number written above, the file related to this work was sent from the scene to the apartment and was read and discussed and considered as necessary :

Enforcement proceedings have been initiated by the creditor against the debtor company by means of general foreclosure, authorized K.Drawer 4. The payment order sent by the Executive Directorate was notified to the permanent employee signature on 20.08.2010 as the debtor company’s deputy.

HUMK.nun 67/1.according to the article, the deputy who does not provide the original or sample of the power of attorney cannot file a lawsuit and cannot perform any duties related to the trial. So much so that, in cases where damage is hoped for in case of delay, the court may allow the attorney to file a lawsuit or take procedural actions, provided that he brings the power of attorney “within a certain period of time that he will give”. If a power of attorney is not issued within this period or the noble does not notify the court with a petition that he has accepted the actions taken within the same period, the case is considered to have not been filed and the actions taken remain invalid.

In the concrete case, Bakırkoy 32, which is included in the follow-up file. In the power of attorney dated 23.05.2008 and numbered 23244 , issued by the Notary’s Office, only Av. It seems that Yalcın Sengul has been appointed as a deputy, but

a document stating that a power of attorney has been granted or authorized is not included in the file. Although the unauthorized Beyoglu filed an appeal to the Executive Directorate of Attorney in the petition. Although the name of Ozlem Sengul is also written; this is the name of the appeal petition. It is understood that it was signed and issued by Yalcın Sengul . In this case, no notification can be made to the deputy who does not have a power of attorney. In that case, the court’s decision to reject the complaint with a written justification instead of canceling the notification process of the payment order is incorrect.

CONCLUSION : The adoption of the debtor’s appeals and the court’s decision for the reasons set out above are in accordance with IIK 366 and HUMK 428. according to the articles (ON ITS DETERIORATION), it was decided unanimously on the day 07/07/2011.

Bir cevap yazın

E-posta hesabınız yayımlanmayacak. Gerekli alanlar * ile işaretlenmişlerdir