T.C.
Supreme
8. law office
Base No:2014/9373
Decision No:2015/9402
K. Date:27.4.2015
Executive Civil Court
The date and number written above were sent to the Department from the scene of the file related to this work upon request by the appellant of the appellant’s examination within the time limit of the court decision and were discussed and considered as necessary after the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file was heard and all the documents in the file were read and examined:
decision
Deputy creditor, in his application to the Executive Court; determined to follow up on the announcement being initiated against the debtor, the debtor in execution by counsel as authorized by demanding deferment of debt as collateral to file appeal file that has been paid by foreclosures that were in demand, however, if your request is denied by the Enforcement Directorate, the execution of the actions that need to be done for release back to the debtor by the party claims for damages that are not met within a period of 7 days for the rejection of the process that is not correct, citing the process of the removal of the Executive Directorate has demanded dated 11.02.2014 mentioned.
The Court decided that the file should be given a period of 90 days from the date of referral to the Supreme Court, if the decision was filed by the Enforcement Directorate on 06.02.2014 with the tensip minutes as collateral, but the collateral determined by the debtor was deposited in the Enforcement Directorate’s vault on 11.02.2014 after 07.02.2014, which is the date of completion of the follow-up, after this date, it was decided to accept the complaint on the grounds that the money deposited in the file as collateral was not deposited within the 7-day legal period determined as of the notification of the executive order and that the issuance of the mehil passport to the borrower on 11.02.2014 was not in accordance with the law and the money deposited after its expiration could not be considered as the money deposited as collateral, the judgment was appealed by the debtor’s attorney.
The time to be given for the withdrawal of the execution is IIK 36. in the article “an appeal appeal against the applicant or borrower ref, will prove that no official had been imposed or imposed authority of money or goods for money or goods in warehouse, enforcement or foreclosure foreclosure or works accepted by the court moved to the borrower or a reputable bank or immovable property or securities if the bail money and stuff mahcuz goods imposed to meet the Regional Justice from the Supreme Court or the court of execution to be left back to make a decision by the executive director is given a reasonable time.
This period can only be extended if necessary …” and the said article does not provide for a specific period for requesting the withdrawal of enforcement. If the conditions of the article are met, the follow-up can be stopped by making a decision to withdraw the execution at each stage of the follow-up. Therefore, the Court’s decision to accept the check is incorrect on the grounds that while it is necessary to decide on the rejection of the complaint, it has not been decided to withdraw the execution within a 7-day period from the notification of the executive order.
CONCLUSION: Provisional Article 3 of HMK No. 6100 of the Court decision on the partial acceptance of the appeals of the debtor’s deputy for the reasons written above. article 428 of HUMK No. 1086. in accordance with Article 388/4 of the CMB, the parties are obliged to (HMK b. 297/o) and IIK’s 366/3. in accordance with the articles, it was unanimously decided on 27.04.2015 that a request for correction of the decision against the ad could be made within 10 days from the notification of the Supreme Court’s Department.
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.