TC
Supreme
law office
Decision No:2014/12697
Decision No:2015/10020
K. Date:6.10.2015
Malatya 4. between the parties in the case Dec. Examination of the decision of the Court of First Instance of the Court of Cassation dated 12/09/2013 and numbered 2012/483-2013 by the plaintiff’s attorney and the company’s fer Y..S. with P..P.. it was intervened and requested by the Dec and it was understood that the appeal petition was filed within the time limit, but after the report prepared by the Examining Magistrate on the file was heard and the petition, Decrees, hearing minutes and all documents in the file were read and reviewed again, the job was deemed necessary by discussing
it was stated: The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the real estate numbered 1270, which is the sole property of the client company, was illegally sold to the defendants, who were members of the management and supervisory board of the period, and the defendant company at a low price, no money was entered into the company’s vault in exchange for this sale, the company was actually vacated, a deed cancellation lawsuit was filed and a lawsuit was filed with a request to dismiss the case. In relation to the same immovable property by the partners,
the defendants M ..K.. and Y..S.111 of the construction contract for floors signed by the defendant company, which was given to the defendant company. for the apartment, due to its sale to a third party who may have good intentions, with the request for cancellation of the registration of the real estate subject to the lawsuit, it has been decided to pay compensation of TL 224,000 for the time being regarding the possibility of selling the real estate subject to the registration of the real estate on behalf of the plaintiff company.
The Defendant his lawyers have asked for the case to be dismissed.
According to the court, the entire scope of the claim, defense and file is covered by Article 341 of the TCC. it is arranged in the article. according to the article, the company’s auditors should take the case to be filed at the general assembly on behalf of the company and make a decision on this issue, or if 1/10 of a concrete case does not have capital, the main shareholders should request a decision from the general assembly, on the other hand, the company’s auditors have not filed a lawsuit, and therefore the plaintiffs do not have the right to file a lawsuit,
as well as the agenda of the company’s general assembly meeting dated 08.07.2000 8. expropriation of real estate on behalf of the company registered in the article, merger, abandoned road transactions related to real estate, sale of wills and shares to any person or at a non-stock price, wholesale or piecemeal, receipt of the sales price, sale of land to the relevant land registry offices, to the board of directors by the general assembly The authority granted by the board of directors on 18.04.2002 chairman of the board of directors on the same subject I.. O..6 regarding the sale transaction, which was exclusively authorized by the company at the general assembly meeting of the board of directors of the company dated 24.04.2003 and which is the subject of litigation.
On the other hand, 309 of the Turkish Commercial Code. it was decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that it entered into force as a result of the publication of the article and that the statute of limitations specified in the article had expired,
the company attorney and the intervener in the plaintiff’s decision are Y..S.. with P.. P.. it has been ruled that it is contested by.
1 – The plaintiff’s case is that the value of the company’s assets was sold only to the members of the board of directors and supervisory board and their real estate to third parties, but this money entered the company’s safe, the defendants had no profit, the real estate company did not have a land registry requesting cancellation and compensation due to legal, sales and centuries-old superstitions, and the plaintiff S, who wants to intervene in the case of the next ferry during the trial..P..it is based on the claim that this request of the was rejected.
However, S, who wants to participate in the case on the side of the plaintiff..P.this request of the has been rejected. P..although the plaintiff company had to submit a notarized declaration that it had 100 muharrer stock coupons to the bearer and therefore a provision had to be made regarding the plaintiff’s intervention against the understanding that it had a legal interest in this case, it was not appropriate to reject this request with the interim Dec. dated 01.09.2013.
2- As for the reason and manner of the violation, there is no room for examining the other objections of the Mumeyiz Party deputies at the moment.
CONCLUSION: For the reason explained in paragraph (1) above, P..P..It was unanimously decided on 10/06/2015 that there is no room for examining the other objections of the Mumeyiz Party deputies for the reasons explained in paragraph (2), and that the objection fee they paid will be returned to them if they request it.