ISTANBUL …. TO THE HONOURABLE JUDGE OF THE CIVIL COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
FILE NO :2013/….. Basis
WHO RESPONDED TO THE ANSWER
(PLAINTIFF):
ATTORNEY: Av.
DEFENDANT
(DEFENDANT): ATTORNEY:
SUBJECT: Presentation of our answers against the reply petitions.
EXPLANATIONS
1-The issues raised by the defendant in its reply petition are inadmissible. Firstly, the defendant’s objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court is unacceptable. Our case before us is not a lawsuit filed against a transaction or action. Under the responsibility. Of the administration and of an administrative nature. But as a result of the contract made by the defendant. With the contractor company in accordance.
With the rules of private law ………………. contract made by the defendant with the contractor. Company in accordance with the rules of private law. Is a tort action arising from the damage caused by the contractor company. To the real estate of the client company. And the lawsuit was filed within the statute of limitations.
In the decision of the Court of Cassation General Assembly. Of Civil Chambers numbered 2000/4-860 E. and 2000/911 K., which we have attached, it is clearly stated. That the Courts of Justice have jurisdiction in cases arising from tortious acts.
2- The objection of the defendant regarding hostility is also unacceptable by us. As stated in the decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation numbered. 2000/7829 E. and 2000/9307 K., which we have attached, although there is a provision in the contract that the contractor.
Will be responsible for the damage and loss suffered by third parties. It is clear that this provision is related to the internal relationship between the contracting. Parties and will only bind the parties and will not bind the third parties. Who are damaged by this event. For this reason, the claim that the defendant is not directly responsible for the damage.
Cannot be accepted legally. Because the construction. Was put out to tender by the defendant and the client was damaged. Due to this construction.
3- The other objections of the defendant on the merits are also legally groundless. And the expert examination on the subject also supports our claim.
It is a practice in line with the established judicial jurisprudence to charge interest from the date of damage in cases arising from tortious acts, and the rule of charging interest from the date of tortious act is a requirement of law.
CONCLUSION and REQUEST: For the reasons briefly presented and explained above. We request that the lawsuit be accepted and the judicial expenses and attorney’s fee be decided. To be imposed on the defendants.
Plaintiff Attorney
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.