{"id":8731,"date":"2026-05-06T13:51:56","date_gmt":"2026-05-06T10:51:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.efeshukuk.com\/?p=8731"},"modified":"2026-05-15T12:31:39","modified_gmt":"2026-05-15T09:31:39","slug":"cekin-iptali-davasi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/efeshukuk.com\/en\/cekin-iptali-davasi\/","title":{"rendered":"Check Cancellation Case"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\u00c7ekin
Check Cancellation Case<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\u00c7ekin \u0130ptali Davas\u0131 – \u0130zmir Avukat<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is a check?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What does "zayi" mean?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00a0Legal Remedies Available in Case of Loss<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The legal remedies available for canceling a lost check are specified in the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102.\u201cTurkish Commercial Code<\/a>\u201dThe 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1.<\/strong> Filing a Lawsuit for Cancellation of a Check: <\/strong>\u0130<\/strong>The 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Filing a Lawsuit to Recover the Check: <\/strong>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Filing a Negative Declaratory Action<\/strong>One 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). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. Cancellation of a Check<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. Filing a Criminal Complaint Against Those Who Illegally Obtained the Check<\/strong>In 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Check Cancellation Case<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00c7ekin kaybolmas\u0131, \u00e7al\u0131nmas\u0131, gasp edilmesi gibi hallerden kaynakl\u0131 iptal davalar\u0131nda, \u00e7ekin 3. ki\u015filerin eline ge\u00e7mesi ve bankaya ibraz edilmesi tehlikesi bulundu\u011fundan dolay\u0131, bu gibi hallerde iptal davas\u0131nda TTK\u2019n\u0131n 757\/1. maddesi uyar\u0131nca, muhatap bankan\u0131n \u00e7eki \u00f6demekten men edilmesi de ihtiyati tedbir olarak istenmelidir. Madde metninde \u00f6deme yasa\u011f\u0131 tedbirine h\u00fckmedilmesi i\u00e7in teminat yat\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fine ili\u015fkin a\u00e7\u0131k bir h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmamakla birlikte, uygulamada mahkemelerce \u00e7ek bedelinin %5 ile %15\u2019i aras\u0131nda de\u011fi\u015fen miktarlarda teminat yat\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 istenmektedir. Buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k, \u00e7ekin yanma, y\u0131rt\u0131lma gibi sebeplerle zayi olmas\u0131 halinde \u00e7ekin 3. ki\u015filerin eline ge\u00e7me ihtimali bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bu gibi durumlarda mahkemeden \u00f6deme yasa\u011f\u0131 talep edilmesine gerek olmayacakt\u0131r. Mahkemece \u00f6deme yasa\u011f\u0131na h\u00fckmedilmi\u015f ve bu karar ke\u015fideciye tebli\u011f olunmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen hamile \u00f6demede bulunan ke\u015fideci, TTK m. 646\/2 gere\u011fi, hile veya a\u011f\u0131r kusuru nedeniyle borcundan kurtulmu\u015f say\u0131lmayaca\u011f\u0131ndan iptal karar\u0131 hamiline tekrardan ifada bulunmak zorunda kalacakt\u0131r.  Kald\u0131 ki, \u00f6deme yasa\u011f\u0131 karar\u0131 verilmemi\u015f olsa dahi bor\u00e7lu, hileli veya a\u011f\u0131r kusurlu bir \u015fekilde \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fiye \u00f6demede bulunursa, karar hamiline haks\u0131z fiil h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re \u00f6demede bulunmak zorundad\u0131r. \u00d6deme yasa\u011f\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n tebli\u011finden sonra \u00f6demede bulunan muhatap bankan\u0131n sorumlulu\u011fu do\u011facakt\u0131r ve muhatap banka, haks\u0131z fiil h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re (TBK m. 49 vd.) sorumlu olacakt\u0131r. TTK\u2019n\u0131n 759\/1. maddesinin a\u00e7\u0131k h\u00fckm\u00fc uyar\u0131nca, iptal davas\u0131 ancak \u00e7eki eline ge\u00e7iren ki\u015finin bilinmemesi halinde a\u00e7\u0131labilir. Bu nedenle, dava has\u0131ms\u0131z olarak a\u00e7\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u0130ptal davas\u0131 a\u00e7ma yolunun se\u00e7ilmesiyle birlikte vadesi gelmemi\u015f olsa da ihtiyati bir tedbir olarak \u00e7eke ili\u015fkin \u00f6deme yasa\u011f\u0131 konulmas\u0131 talep edilmelidir. Uygulamada mahkemeler taraf\u0131ndan \u00e7eke ili\u015fkin \u00f6deme yasa\u011f\u0131 koymak i\u00e7in \u00e7ek de\u011ferinin %15 oran\u0131nda teminat talep edilmektedir. Al\u0131nacak tedbir karar\u0131yla birlikte ilk a\u015famada \u00e7eke ili\u015fkin risk ortadan kalkacakt\u0131r. Dava sonucunda da mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan \u00e7ekin iptaline karar verildi\u011finde \u00e7ek art\u0131k resmen iptal edilmi\u015f olacakt\u0131r. Dava a\u00e7\u0131lmaya karar verilmesi halinde \u00e7ekin vade tarihi gelmeden i\u015fbu dava a\u00e7\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r. Vade tarihi ge\u00e7en \u00e7eke ili\u015fkin iptal davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u00f6deme yasa\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir tedbir karar\u0131 al\u0131nmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmayacak ve dava sonu\u00e7lan\u0131p \u00e7ek iptal edilene kadar risk devam edecektir. Uygulamada \u00e7ek iptal davas\u0131 masrafl\u0131 bir yol olarak g\u00f6z\u00fckse de hak sahibine tam koruma sa\u011flamas\u0131 sebebiyle \u00e7ok daha fazla tercih edilmektedir. Ayr\u0131ca belirtmek gerekir ki, has\u0131ms\u0131z olarak a\u00e7\u0131lan \u00e7ek iptal davas\u0131 sonras\u0131nda mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan Ticaret Sicili Gazetesi\u2019nde \u00e7ekin kay\u0131p oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin ilanlar yay\u0131nlan\u0131r. \u0130landan \u00f6nce veya sonra iptal karar\u0131 verilmeden bahse konu kay\u0131p \u00e7ek mahkemeye sunulursa ya da sunulmasa bile \u00e7eki elinde bulunduran ki\u015fi ortaya \u00e7\u0131karsa, dava istirdat davas\u0131na d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr ve mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan davac\u0131ya istirdat davas\u0131 a\u00e7mas\u0131 i\u00e7in s\u00fcre verilir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Legal Consequences of a Check Cancellation Case<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00c7ekin iptali davas\u0131  ile ikinci olarak iptale konu \u00e7ekin te\u015fhis fonksiyonunun ortadan kalkmas\u0131d\u0131r. Bu kararla birlikte, bor\u00e7lunun (ke\u015fidecinin) \u00e7ekin hamili olarak g\u00f6z\u00fcken ki\u015fiye \u00f6deme yapma zorunlulu\u011fu ortadan kalkar. \u00c7eki elinde bulunduran hamil iyiniyetli bile olsa art\u0131k ke\u015fideciye elinde bulunan \u00e7eke dayal\u0131 olarak ba\u015fvurabilme hakk\u0131n\u0131 kaybeder. Zira, iptal karar\u0131yla birlikte zayi olan \u00e7ekin hak sahipli\u011fini te\u015fhis i\u015flevi ortadan kalkm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130ptal karar\u0131n\u0131n bu sonucu, olumsuz sonu\u00e7 olarak isimlendirilmektedir ((\u015eaban Kay\u0131han, Negotiable Instruments Law, 7th Edition, Se\u00e7kin Publishing, Ankara, 2020, p. 90)<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

\n
\n