Check Cancellation Case

Çekin İptali Davası – İzmir Avukat

What is a check?

A check is a commonly used document in business, and new entrepreneurs can also use it to manage collection and payment transactions. In short, a check is a frequently used payment method.

What does "zayi" mean?

A lost or damaged check means that the check has become unusable or has been taken from the check holder against their will. For example, a check is considered lost if it is lost, stolen, mugged, burned, torn, damaged beyond recognition, or destroyed in natural disasters such as floods or earthquakes.

 Legal Remedies Available in Case of Loss

The legal remedies available for canceling a lost check are specified in the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102.“Turkish Commercial Code”The cancellation of the policy is governed by the rules set forth in Articles 757 to 763 and Article 764/1 of the same Law, as explicitly referenced in Article 818/1-s of the same Law.

1. Filing a Lawsuit for Cancellation of a Check: İThe first option available to the payee or endorser whose check has been lost due to reasons other than their consent is to file a lawsuit for the cancellation of the check before the primary commercial court in the place of payment or the holder's place of residence, as stipulated in Article 757 of the Turkish Commercial Code.

2. Filing a Lawsuit to Recover the Check: If a check is lost and the person holding it is known, a lawsuit can be filed against that person for the return (restitution) of the check.

3. Filing a Negative Declaratory ActionOne of the most important legal avenues available to the drawer, who does not have the right to file a lawsuit for cancellation or a payment prohibition, is to file a negative declaratory judgment lawsuit. In such a lawsuit, the drawer can only request a determination that they are not indebted to the holder who obtained the check in bad faith (knowingly acting to the detriment of the debtor). 

4. Cancellation of a Check One of the rights of a drawer whose check has been taken from them against their will is the right to withdraw from the check, as regulated in Article 799 of the Turkish Commercial Code. According to this article, a drawer whose check has been taken from them against their will can withdraw from the check after the presentation period has expired.

5. Filing a Criminal Complaint Against Those Who Illegally Obtained the CheckIn practice, especially in cases where a check is stolen or lost, the person who received the check files a criminal complaint with the Public Prosecutor's Office to find the perpetrators, and this complaint is used as evidence in check cancellation lawsuits.

Check Cancellation Case

The first recourse for payees or endorsers whose checks have been lost against their will is to file a lawsuit for the cancellation of the check before the primary commercial court in the place of payment or the holder's domicile, as stipulated in Article 757 of the Turkish Commercial Code. While the phrase in the article stating that a person whose check (bill of exchange) has been lost can file a lawsuit might imply that the drawer can also apply to the court, the Supreme Court of Appeals rules that the drawer cannot file a lawsuit for the cancellation of the check. However, the Supreme Court of Appeals also states that in such cases, the drawer has the right to file a negative declaratory judgment lawsuit.

Çekin kaybolması, çalınması, gasp edilmesi gibi hallerden kaynaklı iptal davalarında, çekin 3. kişilerin eline geçmesi ve bankaya ibraz edilmesi tehlikesi bulunduğundan dolayı, bu gibi hallerde iptal davasında TTK’nın 757/1. maddesi uyarınca, muhatap bankanın çeki ödemekten men edilmesi de ihtiyati tedbir olarak istenmelidir. Madde metninde ödeme yasağı tedbirine hükmedilmesi için teminat yatırılması gerektiğine ilişkin açık bir hüküm bulunmamakla birlikte, uygulamada mahkemelerce çek bedelinin %5 ile %15’i arasında değişen miktarlarda teminat yatırılması istenmektedir. Buna karşılık, çekin yanma, yırtılma gibi sebeplerle zayi olması halinde çekin 3. kişilerin eline geçme ihtimali bulunmadığından bu gibi durumlarda mahkemeden ödeme yasağı talep edilmesine gerek olmayacaktır. Mahkemece ödeme yasağına hükmedilmiş ve bu karar keşideciye tebliğ olunmasına rağmen hamile ödemede bulunan keşideci, TTK m. 646/2 gereği, hile veya ağır kusuru nedeniyle borcundan kurtulmuş sayılmayacağından iptal kararı hamiline tekrardan ifada bulunmak zorunda kalacaktır.  Kaldı ki, ödeme yasağı kararı verilmemiş olsa dahi borçlu, hileli veya ağır kusurlu bir şekilde üçüncü kişiye ödemede bulunursa, karar hamiline haksız fiil hükümlerine göre ödemede bulunmak zorundadır. Ödeme yasağı kararının tebliğinden sonra ödemede bulunan muhatap bankanın sorumluluğu doğacaktır ve muhatap banka, haksız fiil hükümlerine göre (TBK m. 49 vd.) sorumlu olacaktır. TTK’nın 759/1. maddesinin açık hükmü uyarınca, iptal davası ancak çeki eline geçiren kişinin bilinmemesi halinde açılabilir. Bu nedenle, dava hasımsız olarak açılmalıdır.

İptal davası açma yolunun seçilmesiyle birlikte vadesi gelmemiş olsa da ihtiyati bir tedbir olarak çeke ilişkin ödeme yasağı konulması talep edilmelidir. Uygulamada mahkemeler tarafından çeke ilişkin ödeme yasağı koymak için çek değerinin %15 oranında teminat talep edilmektedir. Alınacak tedbir kararıyla birlikte ilk aşamada çeke ilişkin risk ortadan kalkacaktır. Dava sonucunda da mahkeme tarafından çekin iptaline karar verildiğinde çek artık resmen iptal edilmiş olacaktır. Dava açılmaya karar verilmesi halinde çekin vade tarihi gelmeden işbu dava açılmalıdır. Vade tarihi geçen çeke ilişkin iptal davası açıldığında ödeme yasağına ilişkin bir tedbir kararı alınması mümkün olmayacak ve dava sonuçlanıp çek iptal edilene kadar risk devam edecektir. Uygulamada çek iptal davası masraflı bir yol olarak gözükse de hak sahibine tam koruma sağlaması sebebiyle çok daha fazla tercih edilmektedir. Ayrıca belirtmek gerekir ki, hasımsız olarak açılan çek iptal davası sonrasında mahkeme tarafından Ticaret Sicili Gazetesi’nde çekin kayıp olduğuna ilişkin ilanlar yayınlanır. İlandan önce veya sonra iptal kararı verilmeden bahse konu kayıp çek mahkemeye sunulursa ya da sunulmasa bile çeki elinde bulunduran kişi ortaya çıkarsa, dava istirdat davasına dönüşür ve mahkeme tarafından davacıya istirdat davası açması için süre verilir.

Legal Consequences of a Check Cancellation Case

The primary purpose of a check cancellation lawsuit is to establish the right of ownership of the person who received the cancellation decision. The plaintiff, having received the cancellation decision, gains the right to claim their rights without the check or to request a new check. However, since the cancellation lawsuit is a declaratory judgment, it only establishes that the instrument is lost. Therefore, since there is no performance lawsuit involved, it is not possible for the person who wins the decision to pursue enforcement proceedings through the execution of the judgment.

Çekin iptali davası  ile ikinci olarak iptale konu çekin teşhis fonksiyonunun ortadan kalkmasıdır. Bu kararla birlikte, borçlunun (keşidecinin) çekin hamili olarak gözüken kişiye ödeme yapma zorunluluğu ortadan kalkar. Çeki elinde bulunduran hamil iyiniyetli bile olsa artık keşideciye elinde bulunan çeke dayalı olarak başvurabilme hakkını kaybeder. Zira, iptal kararıyla birlikte zayi olan çekin hak sahipliğini teşhis işlevi ortadan kalkmıştır. İptal kararının bu sonucu, olumsuz sonuç olarak isimlendirilmektedir ((Şaban Kayıhan, Negotiable Instruments Law, 7th Edition, Seçkin Publishing, Ankara, 2020, p. 90).

This court decision does not constitute a final judgment in terms of substantive law. The existing legal situation remains unchanged in terms of substantive law. The cancellation decision does not affect the existence, content, or the power to dispose of the right. Since the cancellation decision does not constitute a final judgment in substantive law, the person to whom the decision is appealed can raise all defenses arising from the check. The cancellation decision is not effective in terms of substantive law. Therefore, it does not change the legal status of the third party holding the instrument. This is because the protection of good faith is not limited by the cancellation decision. The cancellation decision only removes the debtor's obligation to pay the holder; it does not indicate that the holder has no material claim. In other words, it cannot be concluded that the right of the third party holding the check has ceased and that the plaintiff has become the rightful owner. In such a case, the only recourse for a holder acting in good faith should be to file a lawsuit for the annulment of the cancellation decision.

If a promissory note has been cancelled but the debtor has not yet paid, and the debtor has issued a new check to the holder of the judgment, a third party acting in good faith may file a claim for unjust enrichment against the debtor and the holder of the judgment. Conversely, if the debtor (drawer) has made payment to the holder of the judgment, a third party acting in good faith may file a claim for unjust enrichment against the party who received the payment.

If the debtor (drawer) has made payment to the holder of the cancellation decision based on the cancellation decision, and this payment complies with Articles 646/1 and 710/3 of the Turkish Commercial Code (if there is no fraud or gross negligence), the debtor will be released from the debt. In this case, the bona fide third party in possession of the instrument will file a lawsuit against the holder of the cancellation decision, not the debtor, seeking the annulment of the cancellation decision, and will be able to recover the check amount by proving that the holder of the cancellation decision is not the legitimate owner.

Consequently, the debtor is no longer obligated to make a payment to the creditor holder. As a result of this decision, the person benefiting from the decision can claim their right without a promissory note (check). In other words, the cancellation decision allows the person benefiting from the decision to be recognized as the rightful owner without presenting the check, or to request the issuance of a new check. The debtor, relying on the cancellation decision, is relieved of their debt by making the payment to the person who issued the decision. However, as mentioned above, bona fide third parties have the right to prove their genuine creditor status through lawsuits such as those challenging the cancellation decision or seeking unjust enrichment.

Here are some similar works that might interest you:;

Address: Nergis Neighborhood, Girne Boulevard No: 83, Floor 2, Apartment 2, Karşıyaka, İzmir

E-mail: info@efeshukuk.com

Phone: +90 534 415 52 56