{"id":6011,"date":"2021-07-30T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2021-07-30T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.efeshukuk.com\/?p=6011"},"modified":"2021-08-16T21:01:20","modified_gmt":"2021-08-16T18:01:20","slug":"sira-cetveline-itiraz","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/efeshukuk.com\/en\/sira-cetveline-itiraz\/","title":{"rendered":"Objection to the Ranking List"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"S\u0131ra<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Objection to the Ranking List | Izmir Enforcement Lawyer<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n

Objection to the Ranking List Case<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The document published by the enforcement office, listing creditors in order of priority, is called a priority list. If a creditor wishes to object to the amount or priority of their claim in this priority list, they must do so through a lawsuit filed under Article 235 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. In this lawsuit, the plaintiff is the objecting creditor, and the defendant is the creditor whose claim or priority is being objected to.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Law No. 2004 Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Article 235 <\/strong>\u2013 “S\u0131ra cetveline itiraz edenler, cetvelin ilan\u0131ndan itibaren within fifteen days <\/strong>in the place where bankruptcy was declared to the commercial court<\/strong> dava a\u00e7maya mecburdurlar. 223 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddenin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131 h\u00fckm\u00fc mahfuzdur. Bu davaya bakan mahkeme, davac\u0131n\u0131n iste\u011fi halinde ikinci alacakl\u0131lar toplant\u0131s\u0131na kat\u0131l\u0131p kat\u0131lmamas\u0131 ve ne nispette kat\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi konusunda 302nci maddenin alt\u0131nc\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131na k\u0131yasen on be\u015f g\u00fcn zarf\u0131nda karar verir. \u0130tiraz eden, talebinin haks\u0131z olarak ret veya tenzil edildi\u011fini iddia ederse dava masaya kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131l\u0131r. Muteriz ba\u015fkas\u0131n\u0131n kabul edilen alaca\u011f\u0131na veya ona verilen s\u0131raya itiraz ediyorsa davas\u0131n\u0131 o alacakl\u0131 aleyhine a\u00e7ar. Bir alaca\u011f\u0131n terkini hakk\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131lan dava kazan\u0131l\u0131rsa, bu alaca\u011fa tahsis edilen hisse dava masraflar\u0131 da dahil oldu\u011fu halde s\u0131raya bak\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n alaca\u011f\u0131 nispetinde itiraz edene verilir ve artan\u0131 da di\u011fer alacakl\u0131lara s\u0131ra cetveline g\u00f6re da\u011f\u0131t\u0131l\u0131r. Dava basit yarg\u0131lama usul\u00fc ile g\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcr. Ancak, itiraz alaca\u011f\u0131n esas veya miktar\u0131na taalluk etmeyip yaln\u0131z s\u0131raya dair ise \u015fikayet yoluyla icra mahkemesine arz olunur.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Period for Objections to the Ranking List<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Law No. 2004 Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law<\/a><\/strong> Article 235 stipulates a 15-day forfeiture period from the date of announcement; any objection to the ranking list must be filed within this period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Competent Court<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Objections to the order of priority must be filed within the legal time limit at the commercial court of the place where the bankruptcy decision was made.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Precedent Court Decisions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS, 23RD CIVIL CHAMBER, CASE NO. 2015\/3239, DECISION NO. 2015\/8329<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Haciz yolu ile takiplerde d\u00fczenlenen s\u0131ra cetveline itiraz davalar\u0131nda ise, k\u0131yasen uygulanmas\u0131 gereken \u0130\u0130K’n\u0131n 235\/3. maddesi uyar\u0131nca s\u0131ra cetvelinin iptaline de\u011fil, daval\u0131ya ayr\u0131lan pay\u0131n, yarg\u0131lama giderleri ve vekalet \u00fccreti de dahil olmak \u00fczere \u00f6ncelikle davac\u0131ya \u00f6denmesine, artan k\u0131s\u0131m bulunmas\u0131 halinde, daval\u0131ya b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmesi gerekir. <\/strong>S\u0131ra cetveline itiraz davalar\u0131 sonunda verilen h\u00fck\u00fcm, sadece davan\u0131n taraflar\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan sonu\u00e7 do\u011furur ve verilen kabul karar\u0131 ile durumun tespiti ile yetinilmeyip, eda h\u00fckm\u00fc kurulmal\u0131d\u0131r.Mahkemece, s\u0131ra cetveline alaca\u011f\u0131n esas ve miktar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik olan muvazaa iddias\u0131 ile itirazda bulunuldu\u011fu kabul edilerek, h\u00fck\u00fcm kuruldu\u011funa g\u00f6re, daval\u0131ya ayr\u0131lan pay\u0131n, yarg\u0131lama giderleri ve vekalet \u00fccreti de dahil olmak \u00fczere \u00f6ncelikle davac\u0131n\u0131n alacakl\u0131 oldu\u011fu icra dosyalar\u0131na \u00f6denmesine, artan k\u0131s\u0131m bulunmas\u0131 halinde daval\u0131ya b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmesi gerekirken, yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde, a\u00e7\u0131klanan ilkeyi tam olarak kar\u015f\u0131lamayacak \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131 hatal\u0131 olmu\u015ftur. Di\u011fer yandan, \u0130\u0130K’n\u0131n 142\/1. maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fcne g\u00f6re \u201cCetvel suretinin tebli\u011finden yedi g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde her alacakl\u0131 takibin icra edildi\u011fi mahal mahkemesinde alakadarlar aleyhine dava etmek suretiyle cetvel m\u00fcnderecat\u0131na itiraz edebilir\u201d. Bu h\u00fck\u00fcmle, s\u0131ra cetvelinde yer alan bir alacakl\u0131n\u0131n, pay ayr\u0131lm\u0131\u015f di\u011fer alacakl\u0131lar\u0131n alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n esas ve miktar\u0131na itiraz etmeleri d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. S\u0131ra cetveline itiraz davas\u0131nda takip bor\u00e7lusunun alacakl\u0131 s\u0131fat\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ve kendisine pay ayr\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan daval\u0131 s\u0131fat\u0131 bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Bu davalar, daval\u0131 alacakl\u0131 ile dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 olmas\u0131 gereken bor\u00e7lu aras\u0131nda alaca\u011f\u0131n muvazaal\u0131 olu\u015fturuldu\u011fu ve davac\u0131 alacakl\u0131dan mal ka\u00e7\u0131rma amac\u0131 g\u00fcd\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc iddias\u0131na dayal\u0131 davalard\u0131r. Somut olayda davac\u0131n\u0131n, bor\u00e7luyu da has\u0131m olarak g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan mahkemece, bor\u00e7lu ile ilgili davan\u0131n, bu daval\u0131n\u0131n pasif husumet s\u0131fat\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddine karar verilmemesi do\u011fru olmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. …<\/strong>h\u00fckm\u00fcn BOZULMASINA…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SUPREME COURT<\/strong> 23rd LAW DIVISION<\/strong> E. 2015\/8167<\/strong> K. 2017\/3666<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mahkemece, iddia, savunma ve dosya kapsam\u0131na g\u00f6re, alaca\u011f\u0131n 4.s\u0131raya kaydedildi\u011fine dair iflas idaresi karar\u0131n\u0131n yetki belgesi ile yetkilendirilen davac\u0131 vekili Avukat …22.02.2013 tarihinde tebli\u011f edildi\u011fi halde davan\u0131n \u0130\u0130K’n\u0131n 235<\/a>. in accordance with article . after the statute of limitations<\/strong> The decision to dismiss the case on the grounds that it was filed on March 12, 2013, was upheld by our Chamber's ruling dated June 10, 2015, with case number 2015\/623 E., 2015\/4435 K., following an appeal by the plaintiff's attorney.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For legal advice on this matter, please contact our expert team. Contact <\/span><\/a>page.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here are some similar works that might interest you:;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n