Court Of Cassation Decision On Receivables Case
T.C. JUDICIARY
11th Civil Chamber
Main: 2016/6246
Decision: 2016/6191
Decision Date: 06.06.2016
RECEIVABLES CASE – DENIAL OF THE APPEAL OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NOTIFIED TSMF AS THE NOTIFIED DID NOT HAVE A DULY FILED APPEAL REQUEST IN DUE TIME – NO LEGAL INTEREST IN APPEALING THE JUDGMENT – CONFIRMATION OF THE JUDGMENT
(6502 S. K. art. 3, 73)
Case and Decision: In the case between the parties … … Commercial Court of First Instance dated 15/12/2015 and numbered 2015/1012-2015/869, the Supreme Court of Appeal was requested by the attorneys of the defendant … …, the reported … … and … … … and it was understood that the petition for appeal was submitted within the time limit, and after the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file was listened to and again after the petitions, pleadings, hearing minutes and all documents in the file were read and examined, the matter was discussed and considered:
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that his client took over the deposit receivable of 9.931,00 TL deposited to …bank A.Ş. on 18.10.1999 by …bank A.Ş. pursuant to the transfer of receivables agreement between his client and the non-suit … … and that the defendant bank is the successor of …bank A.Ş. Ş. and demanded and sued for the collection of 9.931,00 TL from the defendant together with the highest interest to be accrued as of 18.10.1999.
The defendant … …. attorney defended that the main responsible of the debt is … … and requested the rejection of the lawsuit.
The court decided to dismiss the lawsuit due to jurisdiction on the grounds that the dispute arises from the banking transaction and that the Consumer Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Articles 3/k-1 and 73 of the Law No. 6502.
The decision was appealed by the counsel for the defendant, the counsel for the notified … … and the counsel for the notified … ….
1- It has been observed that the reply to the appeal and the appeal petition of the attorney of the notified … … were not recorded in the appeal book and the appeal fee was not deposited. In addition, there is no lawsuit filed against the notified … … and … … …, and in the decision rendered by the court, the aforementioned persons are shown in the title of the decision as the notified persons, and no judgment has been rendered against the notified persons.
2- As for the examination of the appellate objections of the defendant’s attorney; according to the writings in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, and the reasons requiring it, it is necessary to decide to reject all the appellate objections of the defendant’s attorney.
Conclusion For the reasons explained in subparagraph (1) above, the appeal requests of the attorneys of the notified … … and … … … are rejected, and for the reasons explained in subparagraph (2) above, all the objections of the defendant’s attorney which are not deemed appropriate are rejected and the judgment, which is in accordance with the procedure and the law, is APPROVED, the fees of the notified … … and … … … are not required to be charged, and the prepaid appeal fee paid is returned to the appellant upon request, 06. 06.06.2016, it was unanimously decided.