Esas No:2020\/5859<\/strong> 11. Hukuk Dairesi 2020\/5859 E. , 2021\/3295 K.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAHKEMES\u0130<\/strong> : B\u00d6LGE<\/strong>ADL\u0130YE<\/strong>MAHKEMES\u0130<\/strong> 11. HUKUK<\/strong>DA\u0130RES\u0130<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Taraflar aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclen davada Alanya 3. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesince verilen 28.03.2019 <\/strong>tarih ve 2016\/478 E- 2019\/182 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n daval\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan istinaf edilmesi \u00fczerine, istinaf isteminin esastan kabul\u00fcne dair Antalya B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 11. Hukuk Dairesi’nce verilen 16.06.2020 <\/strong>tarih ve 2019\/1405 E- 2020\/691 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n Yarg\u0131tay’ca incelenmesi davac\u0131lar vekili taraf\u0131ndan istenmi\u015f ve temyiz dilek\u00e7esinin s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmakla, dava dosyas\u0131 i\u00e7in Tetkik Hakimi … taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen rapor dinlendikten ve yine dosya i\u00e7erisindeki dilek\u00e7e, layihalar, duru\u015fma tutanaklar\u0131 ve t\u00fcm belgeler okunup, incelendikten sonra i\u015fin gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcl\u00fcp, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc: T.C.Yarg\u0131tay11. Hukuk Dairesi Esas No:2020\/5859Karar No:2021\/3295K. Tarihi: 11. Hukuk Dairesi 2020\/5859 E. , 2021\/3295 K. MAHKEMES\u0130 : B\u00d6LGEADL\u0130YEMAHKEMES\u0130 11. HUKUKDA\u0130RES\u0130 Taraflar aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclen davada Alanya 3. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesince verilen 28.03.2019 tarih ve 2016\/478 E- 2019\/182 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n daval\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan istinaf edilmesi \u00fczerine, istinaf isteminin esastan kabul\u00fcne dair Antalya B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 11. Hukuk Dairesi’nce verilen 16.06.2020 tarih ve 2019\/1405 E-…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":10362,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[63],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11096"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11096"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11096\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11097,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11096\/revisions\/11097"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10362"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11096"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11096"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11096"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Karar No:2021\/3295<\/strong>
K. Tarihi:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Davac\u0131 vekili, m\u00fcvekkillerinin daval\u0131 \u015firketin ortaklar\u0131ndan oldu\u011funu, 26.07.2016 <\/strong>tarihinde genel kurul toplant\u0131s\u0131 yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ancak toplant\u0131n\u0131n y\u00f6netmelik gere\u011fi gereken belgeler haz\u0131r olmadan ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirildi\u011fini, bu durumun butlan nedeni oldu\u011funu, toplant\u0131da pay defteri ve y\u00f6netim kurulu karar defterinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkillerinden …’in y\u00f6netim kurulu \u00fcyesi olarak hazurun cetvelinde imzas\u0131n\u0131n bulunmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini, ancak m\u00fcvekkilinin hazurun cetvelini imzalamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, de\u011finilen genel kurulda finansal tablolar\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fclmesinin ertelenmesine karar verilmesine kar\u015f\u0131n yeni y\u00f6netim kurulu \u00fcyelerinin se\u00e7ildi\u011fini, bu durumun a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu, kendileri taraf\u0131ndan sunulan t\u00fcm \u00f6nergelerin reddedildi\u011fini, eski denet\u00e7inin g\u00f6rev s\u00fcresinin dolmu\u015f olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen s\u00fcresi i\u00e7erisinde denet\u00e7i raporlar\u0131n\u0131 sunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, toplant\u0131n\u0131n TTK<\/strong>‘n\u0131n 420. maddesi gere\u011fince bir ay sonraya ertelendi\u011fini, buna g\u00f6re, tam bir ay sonra ayn\u0131 g\u00fcn 26.08.2016 <\/strong>tarihinde toplant\u0131 yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkillerinden olu\u015fan genel kurulun de\u011finilen tarihte topland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve genel kurulun ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirildi\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkillerinin de kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131yla 09.09.2016 <\/strong>tarihinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen, ertelenen genel kurulun ise bir ayl\u0131k s\u00fcreyi a\u015far \u015fekilde topland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek, 26.07.2016 <\/strong>tarihli genel kurul toplant\u0131s\u0131nda al\u0131nan kararlar\u0131n t\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fcn ve 09.09.2016 <\/strong>tarihli ertelenen 4,5,6 ve 8,9. maddelerin g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc genel kurul toplant\u0131s\u0131nda al\u0131nan kararlar\u0131n t\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fcn \u00f6ncelikle butlanlar\u0131n\u0131n tespitine, aksi takdirde iptallerine karar verilmesini istemi\u015ftir.
Daval\u0131 vekili, davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.
\u0130lk derece mahkemesince, iddia, savunma ve t\u00fcm dosya kapsam\u0131na g\u00f6re, dava konusu genel kurul kararlar\u0131nda TTK<\/strong>‘n\u0131n 447. maddesinde belirtilen butlan hallerinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ilk toplant\u0131n\u0131n davac\u0131lar\u0131n talebi ile finansal tablolar\u0131n m\u00fczakeresi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ertelendi\u011fi, ancak ayn\u0131 toplant\u0131da yeni y\u00f6netim kurulunun \u00fcyelerinin se\u00e7imine gidildi\u011fi, bu durumun yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle, davan\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile 26.07.2016 <\/strong>ve 09.09.2016 <\/strong>tarihli genel kurul toplant\u0131s\u0131nda al\u0131nan kararlar\u0131n iptaline karar verilmi\u015ftir.
Karara kar\u015f\u0131 daval\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurulmu\u015ftur.
\u0130stinaf mahkemesince yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda, dava konusu genel kurul kararlar\u0131nda TTK<\/strong>‘n\u0131n 447. maddesinde belirtilen butlan hallerinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, kararlar\u0131n iptal yapt\u0131r\u0131m\u0131na tabi oldu\u011fu, 6102 say\u0131l\u0131 TTK<\/strong>‘n\u0131n 446. maddesi genel kurul kararlar\u0131n\u0131n iptali ko\u015fullar\u0131 ve y\u00f6ntemi d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f olup, toplant\u0131da haz\u0131r bulunup al\u0131nan karara muhalif kalarak bu durumu zapta ge\u00e7iren pay sahibinin iptal davas\u0131 a\u00e7abilece\u011finin belirtildi\u011fi, yerle\u015fik Yarg\u0131tay uygulamas\u0131 gere\u011fince bu durumun dava \u015fart\u0131 niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fu, bu \u015fart\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015febilmesi i\u00e7in muhalefetin al\u0131nan karardan sonra tutana\u011fa ge\u00e7irilmesi gerekti\u011fi, somut olayda, her iki genel kurul tutana\u011f\u0131 incelendi\u011finde, toplant\u0131larda al\u0131nan kararlardan sonra oylamaya ge\u00e7ilmeden \u00f6nce muhalefet \u015ferhlerinin yaz\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 oylama sonras\u0131nda ayr\u0131ca tutana\u011fa ge\u00e7irilmi\u015f muhalefet bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc gerek\u00e7esiyle, daval\u0131 vekilinin istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun kabul\u00fc ile ilk derece mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na, esas hakk\u0131nda yeniden h\u00fck\u00fcm tesis edilmek suretiyle davan\u0131n usulden reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.
Karar\u0131, davac\u0131lar vekili temyiz etmi\u015ftir.
\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince verilen karara y\u00f6nelik olarak yap\u0131lan istinaf ba\u015fvurusu \u00fczerine HMK<\/strong>‘n\u0131n 355 vd. maddeleri kapsam\u0131nda y\u00f6ntemince yap\u0131lan inceleme sonucunda B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince esastan verilen nihai kararda, dosya kapsam\u0131na g\u00f6re saptanan somut uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k bak\u0131m\u0131ndan uygulanmas\u0131 gereken hukuk kurallar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 bir y\u00f6n olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi HMK<\/strong>‘n\u0131n 369\/1. ve 371. maddelerinin uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirici nedenlerin de bulunmamas\u0131na g\u00f6re usul ve yasaya uygun B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n onanmas\u0131na karar vermek gerekmi\u015ftir.
SONU\u00c7<\/strong>: Yukarda a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle, davac\u0131lar vekilinin temyiz isteminin reddi ile B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince verilen karar\u0131n HMK<\/strong>‘n\u0131n 370\/1. maddesi uyar\u0131nca ONANMASINA<\/strong>, HMK<\/strong>‘n\u0131n 372. maddesi uyar\u0131nca i\u015flem yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere dava dosyas\u0131n\u0131n \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesine, karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmesine, a\u015fa\u011f\u0131da yaz\u0131l\u0131 bakiye 4,90 TL<\/strong> temyiz ilam harc\u0131n\u0131n temyiz eden davac\u0131lardan al\u0131nmas\u0131na, 05.04.2021 <\/strong>tarihinde kesin olarak oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"