T.C.
Supreme
11. law office
Base No:10626/2014
Decision No:2014/19177
K. Date:8.12.2014
The deputy plaintiff said that his client owns an 80% stake in the defendant company, and that he has made his wife and children partners in the company for free, one of the plaintiff’s children, F.. A..in order to eliminate himself while the plaintiff was in prison, an extraordinary general meeting of the defendant company was held and the plaintiff’s son B..A..the chairman of the board of directors of the company has been elected and the company has been fully authorized to represent the defendant company has no commercial activity and collects rental income, although the plaintiff’s family falsely issued a 960,000 TL promissory note on behalf of the company to the other defendant S.. M..claiming that the said deed was put into the follow-up and that upon completion of the follow-up, the tenants paid the rental fees to the execution file due to the sending of a payment order and a lien notice to the tenants of the defendant company, his client suffered damage due to the contractual debt relationship between the parties, the defendant company Decried the other defendant s.. M..he demanded to be determined that he did not owe money to and sued.
The defendants’ deputies asked for the case to be dismissed, arguing that the plaintiff did not have an active case license.
Court, claim, defense, and file scope, according to the plaintiff, the absence of the defendant authorised to represent the company, therefore, the subject of the executive proceeding TL 960.000 name and signature on the electric bill because it does not have the absence of the parties to the deed itself, about the execution proceedings in the absence of that was left 80% of the damage is yet to be born, and defendant is not a partner of the company if you were born if it hurt the company, including the right to sue those responsible, however, at this stage, the plaintiff’s locus standi in the case of negative clearance on the grounds that it does not have the active trench, it has been decided to dismiss the case from the point of view of active hostility.
The decision was appealed by the acting plaintiff.
The lawsuit is a vices detection lawsuit filed by the company’s partner against the promissory note debtor joint stock company and the bearer of the promissory note.
The plaintiff, the defendant company is a family company and 80% while the shares of the company with partner and Chairman arrested and went to prison with the family while in prison Extraordinary General Meeting of the other partners authorized to represent and bind the company by his son, the defendant and the defendant as one of the contractors appointed chairman of the board of Directors of the company for the purpose of borclandirip taking money out of the stock held in the case, the defendant and the defendant by the company and the other can be drawn stock was given to it as a fake by claiming that the business case was opened.
Although the court decided to dismiss the case from the point of view of active hostility with a bet that the plaintiff does not have an active case license on a written basis, the parties can assert the invalidity of the contract, as well as third parties can assert the existence of the agreement and determine the invalidity of the contract and file a lawsuit. In other words, third parties who have a direct or therefore beneficial interest and are not a party to the contract with muvazaa may also file a negative determination lawsuit to determine the invalidity (invalidity) due to muvazaa. In the event that third parties have direct or therefore legal benefits, it is jointly recognized that they have the right to file a negative determination lawsuit and prove the agreement and determine the invalidity of the contract, both in practice and in teaching (E.. He.. Cases of Faith-Based Transactions and Mutual Consent, p. 200-201). In this case, in a concrete case, the plaintiff, who is not a party to the deed subject to litigation and is in the position of a third party but has an interest and benefit in determining that the defendant company is not owed money due to the deed, has an active lawsuit license, and the merits of the case should be examined and a decision should be made according to the result, while the decision in writing required to be overturned if the facility is inaccurate.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons described above, it was unanimously decided on 08.12.2014 that the decision should be OVERTURNED for the benefit of the plaintiff by accepting the appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney, and that the appeal fee he paid should be returned to the appellant at his request.
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.