T.C.
SUPREME
17. Law Department Article No:2010/1770
Decision No :2010/8494
Date of Decision : 19.10.2010
RATION CASE – FOR THE BENEFIT OF A THIRD PARTY DURING FORECLOSURE
THE PERSON CLAIMING RATIONS IS AN EMPLOYEE OF A THIRD PARTY
– FROM THE MOMENT OF FORECLOSURE BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
RATIONS MADE WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN THE LAW
ABSENCE OF A CLAIM
SUMMARY: In the concrete case, the subject of the lawsuit was 3 at the time of the foreclosure made on 24.04.2007. for the benefit of the person
A. who claims rations3rd. 3. where the person is the employee (cook). the person is personally selected by the company
it has been stated. Your name, 3. 3. authorized to claim rations for the benefit of the person. the person is a legal person
it is fixed that the company is not a representative. Defendant 3. from the moment of foreclosure by the authorized representative of the person
IIK.96/3 of the. a ration claim made within the 7-day period specified in the article
is not included.
(2004 P. K. m. 96, 99)
Case and Decision: At the end of the trial of the Decriminalization of the ration claim between the parties;
within the period of the decision on the acceptance of the case for the reasons written in the decision, the defendant is the third
upon appeal by the person, the file was reviewed and considered necessary:
The plaintiff is the deputy creditor, Beyoğlu 1. From the file No. 2007/2388 of the Enforcement Directorate, the debtor
3, in which the company has transferred all its assets in consultation. made in the person’s warehouse dated 24.04.2007
at the time of the foreclosure, defendant 3. stating that a claim for rations has been made in favor of the person, IIK.99th.
based on article 3. to decide on the acceptance of the case by rejecting the person’s ration claim
wanted to.
Defendant 3. the person acting, the defendant company was established in 1984, while the debtor company was established in 1963, both
before the death of the company’s co-founder Levent in 2004, defendant 3. the person shares his shares in the company
that it has transferred it and that there is no contact between the companies, that the Dec subject to follow-up is consensual and
he argued that the lawsuit filed unfairly should be dismissed.
The defendant, the debtor, did not attend the hearings and did not submit a response petition.
By the court, defendant 3. there is an organic bond between the person and the debtor’s partners, their distributors and Dec
it was decided to accept the case with a bet that his employees were made up of the same people; judgment, defendant 3.
the person has been appealed by the deputy.
The case is the creditor’s FIRST.99th. to request the rejection of the rations claim filed on the basis of the article
related.
A prerequisite for such cases to be heard is that the property is 3. 3. upon confiscation of the person in possession of person
a limited right in kind, such as the right to property or pledge on property foreclosed by, etc. based
a claim for rations is made. A claim for rations in legal entities is filed by bodies authorized to represent a legal entity
it can be put forward. Who is not authorized to represent a legal entity
the claim made by the person is not considered a valid ration claim.
In the concrete case, the subject of the lawsuit was 3rd at the time of the foreclosure made on 24.04.2007. rations for the benefit of the person
the one who made the claim is A.3rd. 3. where the person is the employee (cook). the person is personally specified by the company.
Your name, 3. 3. authorized to claim rations for the benefit of the person. person legal entity representative of the company
it is fixed that it is not. Defendant 3. IIK from the date of foreclosure by the authorized representative of the person.96/3 of the.
it does not make a ration claim made within the 7-day period specified in its article.
In this case, the ration case filed by the creditor by the court, according to the procedure made during the
since there is no appropriate ration claim, the case should be dismissed due to the absence of prerequisites, whereas otherwise
it is against the procedure and the law to make a decision in writing with thoughts.
Conclusion: Defendant 3 for the reasons described above. the decision on the acceptance of appeals of the person’s deputy shall be made by
Defendant 3, who appeals against the DETERIORATION of the fee received in advance upon request. it was unanimously decided to return it to the person on 19.10.2010.
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.