T.C.
Supreme
11. law office
Base No:12236/2013
Decision No:2014/2603
K. Date:14.2.2014
In the case that is considered as non-adversarial, Rize 1. 2012/643 given by the civil court and the date 06/05/2013-2013/377 as the decision of the Supreme Court of the petition of appeal filed by the plaintiff’s attorney within the period of examination is given and understood that being rested for the audit report to file a claim held by a judge, and again within the file petitions, pleadings, and trial proceedings and all documents are read and analyzed, after the nature of the business is discussed, considered:
The acting plaintiff, his client S.. A..an unidentified person or persons who entered the Trabzon Regional Directorate building by disabling the security alarm of Garanti Bank R.He claimed that they stole 7 blank signed check leaves belonging to the Branch …, whose discoverer is Kadir Tavil, and that the checks in question still have not been found despite all the searches, and demanded that the cancellation of the checks in question be decided and sued.
The court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the checks are blank and signed, that a blank signed check does not have the quality of a valuable document, and that there is no way by law to cancel checks that do not have the quality of a valuable document, according to what the plaintiff’s attorney stated in the petition for action.
The decision was appealed by the acting plaintiff.
The case concerns the request for cancellation of the check.
As a result of the theft at the workplace of his client, the deputy plaintiff filed the lawsuit claiming that customer checks signed by the retailer but not filled out were stolen, and at the end of the trial by the court, it was decided to dismiss the case on the above-mentioned grounds. However, as of the contents of the file, the plaintiff’s party should have reached a conclusion by considering that the checks were allegedly signed by the discoverer, and that it was possible to fill out the empty parts later and treat them, while the decision to dismiss the case on the grounds that the stolen document was not valuable documents was not considered correct, the provision had to be overturned.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons described above, it was unanimously decided on 14.02.2014 that the decision would be OVERTURNED for the benefit of the plaintiff with the acceptance of the appeals of the plaintiff’s deputy, that the appeal fee he paid would be returned to the appellant at his request.
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.