Negative Rulings and Compensation Claims – Court Decisions
Although the plaintiff denied the signature on the promissory note, the report from the Institute of Forensic Medicine concluded as follows:
The signature on the promissory note was made by the plaintiff’s hand; however, it requires further examination.
It was determined that signatures made both before the document’s date and after the promissory note’s date are valid.
Since it was determined that the signature on the promissory note does not match and this irregularity does not constitute an issue,
The plaintiff’s objections on this matter are as follows:
Since the court did not render any decision regarding the claim of non-payment, the case was dismissed.
According to the findings in the reasoned decision, and although the evidence on this matter was not discussed, it has been determined when the payment clause of the promissory note becomes effective.
If left blank, it is generally presumed to be “cash.”
If the plaintiff asserts the contrary and claims it is “in kind,” they are obligated to provide proof of this.
Equally conclusive evidence; as the plaintiff has not submitted written evidence on this matter.
Due to the contract being without consideration, the defendant’s defense of absolute nullity remains valid;
This constitutes a criminal act and is therefore not provable.
Oath or cross-examination;
In the case between the parties, following the objection filed by the plaintiff’s attorney against the decision dated April 18, 2017,
… The decision numbered 2015/1078 E. – 2017/297 K. issued by the First Instance Civil Court.
Regarding the acceptance or rejection of the appeal, the decision dated March 16, 2020, numbered 2017/4306 E. – 2020/686 K., issued by the 16th Criminal Court of First Instance.
A request has been made for the Supreme Court to review the Chamber’s decision dated March 16, 2020, No. 2017/4306 E. – 2020/686 K., regarding the acceptance or rejection of the appeal.
Since it was determined that the appeal petition was filed within the prescribed time limit by the plaintiff’s attorney,
The report prepared by the investigating judge… regarding the case file
After reviewing the petition, defenses, trial transcripts, and all documents, the defenses were heard, and a decision was rendered.
The matter was discussed and evaluated in the file:
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the plaintiff had signed a Tractor Sales Agreement with the defendant company.
In the document dated December 24, 2014, it is stated that a promissory note in the amount of 185,000 TL was issued to the defendants.
Pursuant to the agreement, it is alleged that the tractor was not transferred to the plaintiff as specified in the agreement, and therefore
the contract became void, and the defendant initiated enforcement proceedings in bad faith.
Due to health issues, the plaintiff is attempting to collect the money through the promissory note in his possession.
Due to health issues; an examination of the defendant’s commercial records would reveal
that the tractor was not transferred; the underlying transaction creating the debt related to the promissory note
no contract was signed between the parties; and enforcement proceedings were carried out.
Stating that the actions were unjust and in bad faith, the plaintiff requested a ruling against the defendant.
The plaintiff owes no debt to the defendants.
The defendants’ attorney stated that the signature on the promissory note belongs to the plaintiff, while the defendant Ata Traktör…
Th e company has no connection whatsoever to the promissory note in question or the enforcement proceedings and does not acknowledge them.
The sales contract contains no provisions regarding the promissory note in question.
The promissory note in question was issued by the defendant in exchange for a loan…
Since the promissory note constitutes an unconditional acknowledgment of debt provided to the plaintiff,
The plaintiff requested that the case be dismissed, stating that the defendant is required to prove the contrary with written evidence.
After reviewing the entire case file, the court determined the following in Enforcement Office Case No. 2015/6450:
The creditor initiated an enforcement proceeding regarding negotiable instruments against the debtor based on a promissory note dated June 26, 2015.
Regarding the promissory note dated June 26, 2015 and due on June 30, 2015, the report from the ATK Forensic Sciences Department stated that the signatures on the note were as follows:
…the court dismissed the case regarding this work allegedly created by [name] and ruled that there was no basis for the case since the conditions for compensation were not met.
and it was ruled that there was no grounds for awarding compensation in favor of the defendants; the plaintiff’s attorney
filed an appeal against the decision.
In the appeal review conducted by the Regional Court of Appeals; although the plaintiff denied the signature on the document,
the Forensic Medicine Institute’s report determined that the signature on the document was the plaintiff’s own handwriting;
Although it would have been necessary to obtain and examine signatures prior to the document’s issuance date,
because even signatures made after the document’s date match the signature on the document.
It was determined that the procedural irregularity did not affect the outcome;
Therefore, the plaintiff’s objections on this matter were rejected. Regarding the claim that payment was not made,
Since the court did not make any findings in its reasoned decision and did not discuss the evidence on this matter,
If the payment section on the promissory note is left blank, the term “in cash” must be accepted.
This is generally accepted; if the plaintiff claims otherwise and asserts that it constitutes “equivalent value,” they are obligated to comply.
Since the plaintiff failed to present written evidence,
Regarding the contract’s lack of consideration, the defendant’s defense of nullity retains its validity; the claim of lack of consideration
is also a criminal act and it is understood that it cannot be proven through an oath or cross-examination;
Although the dismissal of the case is correct in principle, the decision of the trial court, which was found to lack sufficient grounds,
was overturned, and the case was dismissed.
The plaintiff’s attorney appealed the decision.
Following the objection filed against the decision rendered by the Court of First Instance,
as a result of the review conducted pursuant to Articles 355 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Regional
Court of Appeals, in its final decision on the merits, ruled that there were no issues contrary to the legal rules applicable to the case in question.
As stated in the case file, the dispute did not
require the application of Articles 369/1 and 371 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
and therefore, the Regional Court of Appeal’s decision had to be affirmed, as it was consistent with
procedural and substantive law.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons explained above, the plaintiff’s attorney’s appeal is dismissed, and the decision is rendered.
The decision issued by the Regional Court of Appeal has been affirmed pursuant to Article 370(1) of the HMK;
The case file has been returned to the court of first instance.
It will be referred to the court for further proceedings; a copy of the decision will be sent to the Regional Court of Appeal, and the remainder
It was unanimously and definitively decided to collect an appeal fee of 4.90 TL from the appellant.
June 21, 2021.
11th Civil Chamber, June 21, 2021, Case No. 2020/6291, Decision No. 5241