T.R.
Supreme Court
11th Civil Chamber
Docket No:2013/12236
Decision No: 2014/2603
K. Date: 14.2.2014
In the case that was considered non-adversarial, the Supreme Court requested the Supreme Court to review the decision dated 06/05/2013 and numbered 2012/643-2013/377 given by the Rize 1st Civil Court of First Instance, and it was understood that the petition of appeal was submitted within the period, after hearing the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file and reading and examining the petition, pleadings, hearing minutes and all documents in the file, as required by the case. discussed and considered:
The plaintiff’s attorney claimed that an unidentified person or persons who entered the Trabzon Regional Directorate building of his client, S.A., by disabling the security alarm, stole 7 blank signed check sheets, numbered…, belonging to Garanti Bank R. Branch, the drawer of which was Kadir Tavil, and that the checks in question had still not been found despite all the searches, and filed a lawsuit for the cancellation of the said checks.
The court decided to reject the case on the grounds that, as stated by the plaintiff’s attorney in the petition, the checks were blank and signed, a check with a blank signature did not qualify as a negotiable instrument, and it was not legally possible to cancel checks that did not qualify as negotiable instruments.
The plaintiff’s attorney appealed the decision.
The case is about the request for check cancellation.
The plaintiff’s attorney filed the lawsuit, claiming that customer checks signed by the drawer but not filled out were stolen as a result of the theft at his client’s workplace, and at the end of the trial, the court decided to reject the case with the above-mentioned reason. However, while the conclusion should be drawn by taking into account that the plaintiff party claimed that the checks had the signature of the drawer and that it was possible for the checks to be put into circulation by filling in the empty sections later, it was not considered right to reject the case on the grounds that the stolen documents were not negotiable documents, and the verdict had to be reversed.
RESULT: For the reasons explained above, it was unanimously decided on 14.02.2014 to accept the appeal objections of the plaintiff’s attorney and to REVERSE the verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and to return the paid appeal fee to the appellant upon request.