In another case;
The plaintiff’s attorney summarized in the “complaint” that “…the client is a limited company with a single partner and a capital of 1,050,000.00 TL, and the amount of the check in question is 500,000.00 USD (approximately 3, 200,000.00 TL), that it is contrary to the normal course of life for the client company to borrow three times its capital, that the defendant company’s representative requested a check from the client to secure receivables arising from exports and imports, that the client signed and gave the defendant company’s representative the check in question with the amount left blank… In 2015, due to the crisis with Russia over the downing of a Russian aircraft in Turkey, the client’s exports ceased… The defendant company’s representative filled in this blank check for USD 500,000.00 and made it the subject of enforcement proceedings… There was no debt between the parties that would require the issuance of a check, and the defendant must prove the underlying relationship that would cause the check to be issued…”
The defendant’s attorney summarized in the response petition that “…the check in question is a negotiable instrument, a means of payment abstracted from its underlying cause, and constitutes a transfer made for the payment of a specific amount without conditions or restrictions, therefore, it is a means of payment, his client is considered the authorized holder, the burden of proof in this case lies with the plaintiffs, his client does not have the burden of proving the underlying relationship between the parties, and the check in question was given to his client by the payee by endorsement for the payment of a cash debt, there is no other legal relationship between the parties that would constitute the basis for the issuance of the check as alleged by the plaintiffs, there is no transportation relationship between the client and the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs are required to prove their claims with conclusive evidence…“ and requested that ”the case be dismissed.”
The court ruled that “… The defendant, the creditor pursuing the claim, obtained the check by endorsement – without hearing the plaintiff’s witnesses on the issue of ‘the defendant’s bad faith in obtaining the check in question by endorsement’, the defendant was deemed ‘bona fide’ – and was in a position of bona fide holder, and the contrary was not proven by the plaintiff, the debtor pursuing the claim. The report prepared by the expert witness stated that, based on the parties’ commercial books, there was no transaction confirming a commercial relationship between them, and that the check in question was not recorded in the parties’ commercial books and accounting records…”
The Regional Court of Justice ruled that “…the claims put forward by the plaintiffs could not be proven with conclusive evidence in accordance with the procedure, and that the fact that the check subject to the lawsuit and enforcement was not recorded in the defendant’s commercial books would not invalidate it or affect its abstract nature, and that the check was a means of payment for the settlement of an existing debt. – the defendant, who obtained the check in question by endorsement, acted in bad faith,” the court accepted the defendant as acting in good faith without hearing the plaintiffs’ witnesses, and ruled that the decision was in accordance with the procedure and the law…. all appeals of the plaintiffs’ attorney were dismissed on their merits.” (…. Regional Court of Appeals 4th Civil Chamber 21.09.2020 T. …….)
The 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation ruled that “there was no inaccuracy in the decision rendered by the Court of First Instance… and that the decision of the Regional Court of Justice to reject the appeal on its merits was in accordance with procedure and law, and therefore unanimously decided on May 26, 2022, to uphold the decision of the Regional Court of Justice.” (Supreme Court of Appeals 11th Civil Chamber 26.05.2022. T. ….)
