T.C.
SUPREME
19. law office
Base No:2016/3384
Decision No:2016/13901
Date of Decision: 24.10.2016
THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
COURT OF First Instance: Court of First Instance
DEFENDANTS : 1-… vek. Hunt. … 2- …
At the end of the trial of the case of detecting a vice between the parties, for the reasons written in the Dec
appeal by the deputy plaintiff within the period of the provision issued for the dismissal of the case due to
after that, the file was examined, and it was discussed and considered as necessary.
decision
The plaintiff’s attorney is his client for the purchase of commercial vehicles Transporter GBP 35,000 worth of the company gave the defendant a check, but the transfer was not made but the delivery of the vehicle and the other defendant with a turnover of Executive Directorate of the file starts to follow the terms and collusive 2015/1744 numbered as if in the execution 41.549,74 TL owes, by claiming his client whether he had to pay
he has requested and sued to be decided on his determination.
Defendant … his/her attorney, the plaintiff’s party has previously filed a claim regarding the check in question ….2. 2015/255 E of the Court of First Instance. In his numbered file, he filed a vile detection lawsuit against the beneficiary … but waived his case, stating that the previously filed lawsuit against the beneficiary regarding this check will have the same consequences as the final judgment, and asked for the case to be dismissed.In court, the plaintiff’s side …. Since the Enforcement Directorate requested to determine that it was not owed due to the follow-up file numbered 2015/1744, the competent court was decided to dismiss the case from the point of view of jurisdiction on the grounds that the defendant’s residence address and the place of enforcement proceedings … was the Court of First Instance, the defendant’s deputy appealed the authority within the period, and the verdict was appealed by the plaintiff’s deputy within the period.
Article 19/2 of HMK No. 6100 states that “In cases where the authority is not certain, the objection to the authority must be put forward in the response petition … otherwise the objection to the authority will not be considered.” and again the provision of article 113 of the same law. article “After the submission of the response petition, the first objections cannot be put forward, even if the response period has not expired.” provision, in accordance with the defendant’s counsel made a motion carried by the second answer and authority considered by reviewing the basics, while in the Local Court of Appeal, and regarded as the first made in the time, depending on the decision of objection on jurisdiction was not correct, the corruption of the decision of the court had.
CONCLUSION: It was decided unanimously on 24/10/2016 that the provision should be OVERTURNED for the benefit of the plaintiff for the reasons described above, and the advance fee should be returned to the bidder.
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.