K Company is one of the reputable manufacturers in the tile industry and enters into a civil partnership with S Bank in relation to production. Unfortunately, the bank does not consider itself bound to observe the laws and regulations governing civil partnerships, as well as the guidelines and circulars of the central bank, which leads to a dispute between the bank and the manufacturer. Subsequently, upon the bank’s suggestion and to resolve this conflict, two installment sale contracts are concluded; however, the funds specified in these contracts are directly withdrawn by the bank for the settlement of the initial contract, an action which contradicts the monetary and banking regulations of the country.
Since K Company was unaware of the said laws and regulations, it paid significant amounts to the bank under the installment sale contracts. However, after becoming aware of the bank’s misconduct, it filed a lawsuit to annul the recent contracts and the related commitments.
The bank’s attorney stated during the hearing that formal installment sale contracts had been concluded between the bank and the plaintiff company and were registered in the official deeds office. It is explicitly stated in Article One of these contracts: ‘The civil partnership contract has been terminated.’ Furthermore, the plaintiff has admitted in the recent contracts: ‘Owes amounts to the bank as stipulated in the contracts,’ which was agreed to be paid to the bank in installments. Therefore, since the transformation of the civil partnership contract into an installment sale contract is envisaged in the relevant regulations and the said contracts have been drafted in accordance with monetary and banking regulations, and on the other hand, the plaintiff has not provided any evidence of its entitlement, the claim presented is not admissible.
Summary of the Court Decision
The court issued an expert order to verify the bank’s actions against the relevant laws and regulations and ultimately considers the plaintiff company’s claims as valid and correct. Regarding the two contracts titled ‘installment sales’ and the commitments subsequently obtained from K Company, the court rules them invalid due to the non-fulfillment of the sale in a manner consistent with the law on banking operations without usury, and the regulations for granting facilities, as well as directives and circulars from the Money and Credit Council and the Central Bank.
