Signing Promissory Notes on Behalf of the Company Even Though It has No Representation Authority – Supreme Court Decision

T.C.

SUPREME

law office
2016/19373
2017/11054
20.9.2017
* SIGNING PROMISSORY NOTES ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY EVEN THOUGH IT HAS NO REPRESENTATION AUTHORITY (Since the Debtor Acting As an Unauthorized Representative Will Be Personally Responsible for the Signature He Has Made on Behalf of the Company / Is Responsible as a Regulator for the Bond, There is No Violation of the Law in the Follow-Up by Foreclosure of Foreign Exchange Notes on the Said Company)

* Monitoring of the debtor made following the cancellation of the trade registry office according to the response from the representative of the company without authority, it being understood that the borrower Signed the deed on behalf of the company to represent Drawer Muteriz he will be personally responsible for governing the bonds on behalf of the company Signature/Unauthorized acting in his capacity as representative of organizer of the bills because he owes is responsible for carrying out enforcement because in his capacity as mentioned in violation of the law about the Negotiable Instrument )Without

* FOLLOW-UP BY FORECLOSURE FOR PUBLIC SECURITIES (According to the Answer to the Letter from the Commercial Registry Office of the Debtor, It Is Understood That He Is Not a Representative of the Company, But He Does Not Have the Right to Represent, Although the Debtor Will Be Personally Responsible for the Signature That He Made on Behalf of the Company That Issued the Bond on Behalf of the Company That Signed the Promissory Note on Behalf of the Debtor)

6102/m.678,778/2

ABSTRACT: In the concrete case, it was understood that the debtor who was followed up by the creditor was not a representative of the company according to the response of the article from the Trade Registry Office. In this case, although there is no representation authority, it is of course that the debtor who signs the promissory note on behalf of the company will be personally responsible for the signature he signs on behalf of the company regulating the promissory note. Since the debtor, acting as an unauthorized representative, is responsible for the bond in the capacity of the regulator, there is no violation of the law in pursuing the said issue by foreclosure on foreign exchange notes.In that case, while the court should decide on the rejection of the appeal, the provision on the cancellation of the follow-up with a written justification is incorrect.

CASE: The file related to this work was sent from the scene to the apartment upon request by the creditor of the appellant’s examination within the time limit of the court decision with the date and number written above, and the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file was reviewed and considered as necessary after the hearing and all the documents in the file were read and examined :

DECISION : based on the attachment for the Bonds by the creditor initiated through Negotiable Instruments in pursuit of the debtor, the execution court shall apply; the following subject act on behalf of the company, signed personally if you owe, a debt that is not asserting follow-up of cancellation requested by the court,both of which are two signatures on the deed Bowl is over, the borrower without the authority of the company and, for this reason, therefore, could not be held personally responsible in bonds, the signature on the grounds that the debtor about the follow-up, it was understood that it was decided to cancel.

778/2 of the TCC. article 678 of the Turkish Commercial Code, which must also be applied to bonds by submitting subparagraph (e). in the article; ”The person who signs a policy as a representative of a person, even if he does not have the right to representation, is personally responsible for this policy …” is included in the provision.

In the concrete case, it was understood that the debtor who was followed up by the creditor was not a representative of the company according to the response of the letter from the Trade Registry Office. In this case, although there is no representation authority, it is of course that the debtor who signs the promissory note on behalf of the company will be personally responsible for the signature he signs on behalf of the company regulating the promissory note. Since the debtor, acting as an unauthorized representative, is responsible for the bond in the capacity of the regulator, there is no violation of the law in pursuing the said issue by foreclosure on foreign exchange notes.

In that case, while the court should decide on the rejection of the appeal, the provision on the cancellation of the follow-up with a written justification is incorrect.

CONCLUSION : The decision of the court on the acceptance of the creditor’s appeals is based on Article 366 of the IIK for the reasons written above. and HUMK’s 428. in accordance with the articles (ON DETERIORATION), the refund of the fee received in advance if requested was decided unanimously on 20.09.2017, with a clear way to correct the decision within 10 days from the notification of the notification.

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