TC
Supreme
law office
ORIGINAL NO.: 2016/661
DECISION NO: 2016/1136
DECISION DATE: 25.1.2016
COMPANY PROPERTY CANNOT BE CONFISCATED DUE TO THE COMPANY PARTNER’S PERSONAL CHILD SUPPORT DEBT — THIRD PARTY’S RATION REQUEST
6102/m.133
2004/m.96
SUMMARY: The case relates to the alimony claim of a third party.
The lawsuit was filed due to child support debt, which is a personal debt of the debtor, a partner of the company. 6102 Pp.K. Md. in case No. 133, if one of the personal creditors reserves the right to terminate the dividend per partner according to the company’s balance sheet and the company’s liquidation balance sheet, he is authorized to liquidate the debtor as a result of the balance sheet arrangement or to collect and seize other receivables from partner companies in the years when the debtor’s profit and participation, affiliated or unaffiliated shares must be moved or seized in accordance with the provisions of the Execution and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004.
In addition, since it is contrary to procedure and law to foreclose on the company assets due to the personal debt of the debtor, it is not appropriate to decide to reject the case when it is necessary to accept it.
INCIDENT:
Upon the plaintiff’s request to conduct an examination of the defendant within the period of the Court decision of the above date and number, the file related to this study was sent to the Department from the scene and the necessity of the study was discussed and evaluated after the report on the case file was listened to by the Examining Magistrate and all the documents in the file were read and examined:
decision
Plaintiff 3.on 4.6.2013, the person’s representative requested and sued that the company’s securities had been seized by his client, that the debtor was a partner of the company, that the company’s goods could not be seized due to the company partner’s personal debt, and that a foreclosure decision should be made upon acceptance of the reclamation receivables.
The defendant requested that enforcement proceedings be initiated for the collection of child support determined on behalf of the surrogate creditor, his client and their joint children, that the plaintiff company knowingly requested child support after foreclosure, therefore it was decided to dismiss the case.
At the end of the trial conducted by the court, it was decided to dismiss the maintenance case and the decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s third-party corporate lawyer.
33 of the CCP No. 6100. according to the article, it belongs to the parties to put forward material events, to make legal qualifications and to determine the legal articles to be applied by the judge. According to the way the claim is put forward, the case is the 96th of the third party’s OIC. it is determined by the substance. et al. the “mutual correction” lawsuit filed according to the articles is a lawsuit, and the court decides by making a trial according to this qualification.
The lawsuit was initiated due to child support debt and it is the personal debt of the debtor who is a partner of the company. 133 of the Turkish Commercial Code numbered 6102. according to the article; the personal creditors of one of the partners have the authority to liquidate the dividend per partner according to the company’s balance sheet and the company if the liquidation balance sheet is issued, liquidate the debtor or profit the debtor as a result of the balance sheet arrangement, and foreclose the debtor’s, affiliated or unaffiliated shares in accordance with the provisions of the Execution and Bankruptcy Code 2004, or take other receivables from the partner companies, foreclose.
In addition, since the seizure of the company assets due to the personal debt of the debtor of the partner of the company is contrary to procedure and the law, it is not correct to decide to reject the case in writing in cases where acceptance is requested.
CONCLUSION :
For the reason explained above, it was accepted by the plaintiff’s attorney.of, 366. article and Provisional 3 of the CCP numbered 6100. with the decision on the acceptance of the appeals made in accordance with Article 428 of the HUMK No. 1086. according to the article, the parties are the FIRST.of 366/3. in accordance with the decision on the VIOLATION in accordance with the article, it was unanimously decided by the Supreme Court that a request for correction of the decision can be filed within 10 days from the date of notification and the refund of the advance fee of TL 24.30 to the plaintiff on 25.1.2016.