Menu
En iyi Manavgat Avukatı
  • Anasayfa
  • Biz
  • İletişim
  • Blog
Close Menu
28/07/2022

Supreme Court Decision on Vehicle Depreciation Case

Rabia Ekşi Uncategorized @tr alanya, antalya, law, lawyer, mahmutlar

17.LEGAL DEPARTMENT 2016/16133 E. , 2017/8256 K.
“text of jurisprudence”
COURT OF First Instance: Court of First Instance

At the end of the trial of the compensation case between the parties; The file was examined and considered necessary after the defendant appealed the decision on the acceptance of the case for reasons written in the Decisionm within the period of time:
decision
Plaintiff attorney, the plaintiff in the conduct of the vehicle while cruising on my own … 17.07.2013 plate plate Plate control him from behind the vehicle as a result of the collision from behind, the drive control of the vehicle accident that had occurred the damage to the plaintiff of the defendant’s vehicle in the accident …’s full of imperfect occurred as the result of the action, find the defendant …’s the one … the other defendant Ltd. Şti. by declaring that the defendant company is also responsible for the damage caused by being registered in its name, that the plaintiff has no defects, that damage has occurred to the plaintiff’s vehicle, and that a loss of value has occurred in the vehicle due to this, that the vehicle has been in service for some time, if you are receivables due to uncertainty of traffic of vehicles registered in the name of the defendants with the imposition of injunctive relief without prejudice to the rights records on the surplus 1.000,00 TL pecuniary compensation together with interest from the date of the accident to the legal process, given that the defendants jointly and severally be requested to decide on the collection, breeding petition demand with 26.10.2015 3.500,00 TL increased.
The defendants have asked for the case to be dismissed.
Court, claim, defense, according to the collected evidence and expert adopted the report of the accident as of the date of peers trading market value of undamaged 58.500,00 TL at the date of the accident repairs and vehicle trading market, the value after a number of 55.000,00 TL
with the acceptance of a given case 3.500,00 TL financial compensation together with interest from the date to the event date 17/07/2013 legal process, defendants jointly and severally to the plaintiff should be awarded with the collection, it was decided that; the judgment was appealed by the defendant.
According to the evidence collected and evaluated by the court, in particular, there is no irregularity in the calculation of the defect rate and compensation specified in the expert expert report prepared in accordance with the occurrence and file content, the defendant has rejected all appeals not seen on the spot and approved the decision in accordance with the procedure and law and received the remaining approval fee of 180.00 TL written below from the appellant defendant … 27.9.2017 it was decided unanimously on the day.

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

Non-Payment of Alimony Payable Complaint Period Supreme Court Decision The Contract of Sale Promise Expires

Related Posts

Uncategorized @tr

Anayasa Mahkemesi 4 sözleşmeli personel alacak

Anayasa Mahkemesi Başkanlığı (Başkanlık) merkez teşkilatında istihdam edilmek üzere, yapılacak sözlü sınav esas alınmak suretiyle, Destek Personeli (Temizlik Görevlisi) pozisyonu için toplam 4 (dört) sözleşmeli personel alınacak. Anayasa Mahkemesi Başkanlığından: 4 (DÖRT) SÖZLEŞMELİ PERSONEL ALIMI HAKKINDA DUYURU Anayasa Mahkemesi Başkanlığı (Başkanlık) merkez teşkilatında 657 sayılı Devlet Memurları Kanunu’nun 4 üncü maddesinin (B) fıkrasına göre istihdam […]

Uncategorized @tr

TBB BAŞKANI SAĞKAN 5 NİSAN AVUKATLAR GÜNÜNDE KONUŞMA YAPTI

Avukatlar, Türkiye Barolar Birliği’nin öncülüğünde 5 Nisan Avukatlar Günü’nde Ankara’da ‘Savunmanın Bağımsızlığı ve Hukuka Saygı’ yürüyüşü yaptı. Barolar adına konuşma yapan Türkiye Barolar Birliği Başkanı Av. R. Erinç Sağkan, “Biz bugün hukuk devletini savunmak için, yargı bağımsızlığını savunmak için buradayız. Bu ses susturulamaz” dedi. “İSTANBUL BAROSU, HUKUKA AYKIRI YARGI KARARLARIYLA GÖREVİNDEN UZAKLAŞTIRILMAK İSTENİYOR” Anıtpark’ta bir […]

Uncategorized @tr

Determination and Recommendations regarding the Main Procedural Problems in Terms of Earthquake-Related Civil Cases

“It is Not Possible to Get Rid of the Responsibility of Those Responsible by Obscuring the Evidence of the Earthquake, On the Contrary, Their Responsibilities Increase” Prof. Dr. Muhammet Özekes (12.02.2023) If the CCP and procedural rules can be applied consciously, correctly and quickly, the judiciary can get out of this earthquake without being in […]

Uncategorized @tr

The Decision of the Council of State that the Consumer Bank Cannot Receive Account Operating Fees

COUNCIL OF STATE 15. apartment Basis: 2014/9570 Verdict: 2018/1194 Plaintiff : Consumer Problems Association Acting Director : Av… Respondent : Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency Acting Director : Av… Summary of the Case: Article 10 of the Regulation on the Procedures and Principles regarding Fees to be Collected from Financial Consumers, which entered into force […]

Uncategorized @tr

Negative Detection Case Based on the Guarantee Bond Claim, Exchange Monitoring Supreme Court Decision

T.C. SUPREME 19. law office MAIN NUMBER: 2016/3357 DECISION NO: 2016/13899 DECISION DATE: 24.10.2016 >> FOREIGN EXCHANGE MONITORING, NEGATIVE DETECTION CASE BASED ON THE CLAIM THAT THE BILL IS A SECURITY BILL, BURDEN OF PROOF AND STATE OF EVIDENCE 6100/m.222/5 6102/m.64 SUMMARY: The case is related to the request for negative determination. The plaintiff has […]

Back To Top
manavgat avukat

İletişim:

+905425139898

+902425139898

info@antalya.law

Adres

Hacet Mahallesi, Canlılar Sokak,
Avukatlar İş Merkezi, No: 7, Daire: 2-3
Alanya / Antalya

Copyright © 2020 Aşıkoğlu Hukuk ™ Aşıkoğlu Uluslararası Hukuk Bürosu, Her Hakkı Saklıdır

WhatsApp us