T.C.
SUPREME
THE COMPANY’S PROPERTY CANNOT BE FORECLOSED DUE TO THE PERSONAL CHILD SUPPORT DEBT OF THE COMPANY’S PARTNER — THE RATION CLAIM OF THE THIRD PARTY
6102/m.133
2004/m.96
ABSTRACT: The case is related to the ration claim of the third party.
The lawsuit has been initiated due to the child support debt and is a personal debt of the company’s partner, the debtor. 6102 Pp.K. Md. 133 one of the partners of the personal creditors, reserves the right, in accordance with the company’s balance sheet and the company that the share of profits per partner is to be dissolved if the liquidation balance sheet arrangement of shares if the result of the arrangement of the balance sheet liquidation of the debtor or the debtor, the snow will fall and the share belonging to, connected or unconnected shares of the execution and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 in the years to move through or be seized in accordance with the provisions of the other receivables from partner companies to receive, and shall be authorized to be able to garnishment. In addition, since the foreclosure of the company’s assets due to the personal debt of the company’s partner debtor is contrary to the procedure and law, it is inappropriate to decide on its rejection when the case should be accepted.
CASE: After the appellant requested the appellant’s examination within the time limit of the Court decision written in the date and number above, the file related to this work was sent from the scene to the Department and after the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file was heard and all the documents in the file were read and examined, the need for the work was discussed and considered:
decision
Plaintiff 3.on 4.6.2013, the person’s deputy requested and sued that the foreclosure be decided upon the acceptance of ration claims, stating that the securities belonging to the company have been foreclosed on by his client, that the debtor is a partner of the company, that the goods belonging to the company cannot be foreclosed due to the personal debt of the company’s partner.
The defendant requested that they initiate enforcement proceedings for the collection of the alimony determined for the deputy creditor, his client and their joint children, that after the foreclosure, the plaintiff company intentionally filed a claim for rations, and that the case be decided to dismiss the case for this reason.
At the end of the trial held by the court, it was decided to dismiss the ration case and the decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s third-party company attorney.
33 of HMK No. 6100. according to the article, it is up to the parties to bring forward material events, it is up to the judge to make a legal qualification and determine the articles of the law to be applied. According to the way the claim is put forward, the case is determined by Article 96 of the IIK of the third party. et al. the “ration” case filed in accordance with the articles is in the nature of a case, and the Court also decided by holding a trial according to this qualification.
The follow-up to the lawsuit was initiated due to the child support debt, and the company’s partner is the debtor’s personal debt. Article 133 of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102. according to the article, the personal creditors of one of the partners reserves the right to, in accordance with the company’s balance sheet and the company that the share of profits per partner is to be dissolved if the liquidation balance sheet arrangement of shares if the result of the arrangement of the balance sheet liquidation of the debtor or the debtor, the snow will fall and the share belonging to, connected or unconnected shares of the execution and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 in the years to move through or be seized in accordance with the provisions of the other receivables from partner companies to receive, and shall be authorized to be able to garnishment. In addition, since the foreclosure of the company’s assets due to the personal debt of the company’s partner debtor is contrary to the procedure and law, it is not correct to decide on the written rejection of the case when acceptance is required.
CONCLUSION : For the reason described above, the decision of the plaintiff’s third-party attorney on the acceptance of appeals of Article 366 of the IIK. and Temporary 3 of HMK No. 6100. according to Article 428 of HUMK No. 1086. in accordance with Article 366/3 of the IIK by the parties to its DETERIORATION. in accordance with the articles, it was unanimously decided on 25.1.2016 that a request for correction of the decision could be made within 10 days from the notification of the Supreme Court of Appeals and that the advance fee of TL 24.30 be returned to the appellant.