Loss of the Bond in the Bank, Cancellation of the Bond May Be Requested Due to Loss Supreme Court Decision

T.C
SUPREME
11. law office
MAIN NUMBER: 2016/9880
DECISION NO: 2018/2363
DECISION DATE: 03.04.2018

>> LOSS OF THE BOND IN THE BANK – THERE IS A LEGAL INTEREST OF THE BANK IN REQUESTING THE CANCELLATION OF THE BOND DUE TO THE LOSS

SUMMARY: The case is related to the request for cancellation of the bond due to loss, and the court decided to dismiss the case in writing on the grounds that the plaintiff has no legal benefit. However, from the scope of the file, it is understood that the plaintiff bank has taken over the bonds whose cancellation is requested with the collection turnover and has the capacity of proxy holder. Since the collection turnover, the collection of the price of the bill and the representation authority to perform related rights protective transactions are a form of appearance specific to the negotiable instrument, the bank, which is a proxy holder, has the right to request the return of the bill in the hands of a third party or to request its cancellation due to loss. In this case, the court should decide, taking into account the legal benefit of the plaintiff in filing a claim for cancellation of the negotiable instrument.

Malatya 4 in the case that is seen as unfriendly.2015/485 given by the civil court and date 08/01/2016-examination by the plaintiff’s attorney filed the petition and appeal of Decision No. 2016/42 yargitayca that is given within the period of being understood, with longing for the judge to file a claim audit report edited by lefty melody rested, and again within the file petitions, pleadings, and trial proceedings and all documents are read and analyzed, after the nature of the business is discussed, considered:

The plaintiff’s attorney requested and sued to decide on the cancellation of the negotiable instruments, claiming that the bills of exchange issued to his client with the turnover of the collection were lost in their branches.

According to the scope of the entire file, the court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that lawsuits related to the cancellation of negotiable instruments should be filed by the authorized holder, and that the plaintiff bank, which holds securities with collection turnover, has no legal benefit.

The decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.

The case is related to the request for cancellation of the bond due to loss, and the court decided to dismiss the case in writing on the grounds that the plaintiff has no legal benefit. However, from the scope of the file, it is understood that the plaintiff bank has taken over the bonds whose cancellation is requested with the collection turnover and has the capacity of proxy holder. Since the collection turnover, the collection of the price of the bill and the representation authority to perform related rights protective transactions are a form of appearance specific to the negotiable instrument, the bank, which is a proxy holder, has the right to request the return of the bill in the hands of a third party or to request its cancellation due to loss. In this case, while the court should have made a decision by considering the legal benefit of the plaintiff in filing a claim for cancellation of the negotiable instrument, it was not correct to decide to dismiss the case in writing, and the decision had to be overturned.

CONCLUSION: For the reasons described above, it was unanimously decided on 03/04/2018 to OVERTURN the judgment in the interest of the plaintiff with the acceptance of the plaintiff’s attorney’s appeals and to return the advance appeal fee paid to the appellant if requested.

You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.