Yargıtay 11’inci Hukuk Dairesi’nin 23.01.2017 Tarih ve 2017/38 Esas, 2017/444 Karar Sayılı Kararı Çerçevesinde Şirketin Yetkili Temsilcisi Aracılığıyla Düzenlenen Bonolarda Asıl Borçlu Sıfatının Belirlenmesi Üzerine Düşünceler

Abstract

Bononun mutlak zorunlu unsurlarından birisi de, düzenleyenin imzasıdır. Bazen kanuni bir zorunluluktan, bazen de kişinin iradesinden ötürü bono temsilci aracılığıyla da düzenlenebilir. Dolaylı temsile ilişkin durum haricinde, bu şekilde düzenlenen bonolarda düzenleyen sıfatı, temsil olunana aittir. Ticaret şirketleri ise, iradelerini yetkili organları aracılığıyla ortaya koyabilirler. Ancak ticaret şirketlerinin yetkili organı eliyle düzenlenen bir bonoda, temsil ilişkisinden söz edilemez. Bu senet bizzat ticaret şirketi tarafından düzenlenmiş olarak kabul edilir. Çalışmamıza konu Yargıtay kararında, biri sağ alt köşeye biri de matbu kefil kısmına basılan şirket kaşelerinden yalnızca sağ alt kısımdaki şirket kaşesinin, kaşeyi taşırmadan aynı yetkili temsilci tarafından iki kez imzalanması suretiyle düzenlenen bir bonoda, senette matbu olarak yer alan ödeyecek kısmının, şirketin yetkili temsilcisinin adı ve soyadı yazılarak doldurulduğundan bahisle, yetkili temsilcinin düzenleyen; şirketin ise, avalist olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Oysa, Kanunda aranılan (mutlak) zorunlu unsur, düzenleyenin imzası olduğundan; şirketin yetkili temsilcisi eliyle şirket unvanı altında imzalanan bir bonoda, düzenleyen olarak “şirket” kabul edilmelidir.

One of the absolute compulsory elements of the promissory note is the signature of the issuing person. Sometimes_x000D_ due to a legal obligation or sometimes the will of the person, the promissory note can be issued through an authorized_x000D_ representative. Except for the situation related to the term indirect representation, it is the represented person who is_x000D_ deemed to have the legal responsibilities on the promissory note as issuing the instrument if it is issued through a legal_x000D_ representative. Commercial companies use their will through their authorized bodies. However, the term representation_x000D_ cannot be mentioned when a promissory note is issued through the authorized bodies of the commercial companies._x000D_ Instead, this instrument is deemed to be issued directly by the commercial company itself. The decision of the court of_x000D_ appeals, which constitutes the subject of our work, is related to two marks of the company stamp; one of which is located_x000D_ on the right bottom corner of the instrument, and the other one, which is located on the printed designated area for the guarantor. The one which is located on the right bottom corner of the instrument, is signed twice, without_x000D_ exceeding the mark of the stamp. In the context of this very instrument, it is decided upon that the company_x000D_ is the legal person who signs a surety, and the authorized representative of the company is the person who_x000D_ issues the instrument, regarding the fact that the printed designated area, indicating the person who performs_x000D_ the payment, filled with the name and surname of the authorized representative. However, the company_x000D_ itself should be deemed as the person who issues the instrument, even if the promissory note is signed by_x000D_ an authorized representative under the commercial name of the commercial company, since the signature of_x000D_ the person who issues the instrument is an absolute mandatory element required by the law for issuing the_x000D_ promissory note.

One of the absolute compulsory elements of the promissory note is the signature of the issuing person. Sometimes due to a legal obligation or sometimes the will of the person, the promissory note can be issued through an authorized representative. Except for the situation related to the term indirect representation, it is the represented person who is deemed to have the legal responsibilities on the promissory note as issuing the instrument if it is issued through a legal representative. Commercial companies use their will through their authorized bodies. However, the term representation cannot be mentioned when a promissory note is issued through the authorized bodies of the commercial companies. Instead, this instrument is deemed to be issued directly by the commercial company itself. The decision of the court of appeals, which constitutes the subject of our work, is related to two marks of the company stamp; one of which is located on the right bottom corner of the instrument, and the other one, which is located on the printed designated area for the guarantor. The one which is located on the right bottom corner of the instrument, is signed twice, without exceeding the mark of the stamp. In the context of this very instrument, it is decided upon that the company is the legal person who signs a surety, and the authorized representative of the company is the person who issues the instrument, regarding the fact that the printed designated area, indicating the person who performs the payment, filled with the name and surname of the authorized representative. However, the company itself should be deemed as the person who issues the instrument, even if the promissory note is signed by an authorized representative under the commercial name of the commercial company, since the signature of the person who issues the instrument is an absolute mandatory element required by the law for issuing the promissory note.