In short
Enforcement of a cheque debt often runs by proceedings special to bills of exchange, and it is a door separate from enforcement of an invoice. The periods, and the possibility of an objection, are narrower. This text describes the door that is specific to a cheque. A dishonoured cheque is not a criminal intent. There is no promise of collection. The number of days for presentment is not fixed here.
Why a separate route
A cheque is a bill of exchange. The creditor can open bills proceedings with the original instrument and with title. Title is read from the chain of endorsements. Proceedings by ordinary attachment are weighed separately, because of the conditions of the instrument or because of strategy. Mixing the two in the same petition creates a procedural risk. Enforcement of an invoice does not stand in for the cheque. Without the original cheque, the bills route becomes harder.
A promissory note and a cheque are not the same instrument. The face, the date of drawing and the payee are read separately. If an endorsement has been erased or is broken, title is discussed from the break. Proceedings are not opened by treating the break as if it were not there. A photocopy of the instrument does not of itself stand in for the original. Presentment of the original is looked for in the file.
The debtor's side, and presentment
When a payment order, or a bills payment order, arrives, the period is short. The grounds of objection are limited. A general objection in the form that there is no debt does not carry every claim. The writing of a general objection and the bills-specific one need to be separated. Which ground was put forward is read from the petition. The objection is not treated as completed before the ground is written.
Within how many days presentment is to be made is not a figure in this text. The stamp and the date are looked for on the cheque. A claim about the period is read from that record. It is not said that presentment was made while there is no stamp. The bank's endorsement is kept together with the face of the cheque. The explanation in the endorsement is not turned into another ground in the enforcement petition. A day is not invented. The drawer, the endorser and the payee are not treated as the same person. Each signature is read from its place on the cheque. If a signature cannot be read, it is written that it cannot be read. An unreadable signature does not of itself identify the debtor. An endorsement is read as it appears on the instrument. An endorsement that does not appear is not added to the chain. If the chain is broken, the creditor is not declared the holder of the right before explaining the break in the petition. If the explanation conflicts with the writing on the original cheque, the original is taken as the basis. A photocopy may not show an erasure on the original. If there is an erasure, keeping minutes over the original is discussed separately. The minutes do not fix the day of presentment here. The number of days is still read from the record on the cheque, and it is not made into a figure in this text.
Bankruptcy and the criminal side are separate doors
The bills route into bankruptcy, where the debtor is a trader, is a separate heading. Not every cheque means bankruptcy. A request for bankruptcy is not the result, of itself, of bills proceedings. Which route was chosen is understood from the request for proceedings. The two routes are not melted in the same petition at the same time.
A complaint about a dishonoured cheque is not the name of collection through enforcement. The criminal proceedings are a separate regime. The complaint does not mean the cheque was collected. A payment in the enforcement file does not of itself drop the complaint either. This text does not build the elements of the offence. Service goes to the address in the enforcement file. The address in the criminal file does not stand in for service in the enforcement proceedings.
What is looked at in the cheque file
The question of how enforcement of a cheque debt works is built from the original instrument and the type of proceedings. A lawyer in Ankara reads the face of the cheque and the chain of endorsements side by side. The office being in Çankaya does not change the enforcement office or the competent court. Jurisdiction is read separately through the type of proceedings and the debtor's place of residence.
In practice this text follows this order. First it looks at whether the original cheque is in the file. Then it reads whether the chain of endorsements is broken. Then it asks whether there is a stamp of presentment. It does not fix the number of days on the stamp here. If there is an invoice or a promissory note, it does not stick that document onto the cheque proceedings. If an objection has come, it separates from the petition whether the ground fits the bills route.
This text also separates a criminal complaint from collection through enforcement. A claim of a dishonoured cheque does not stand in for the payment order. The bankruptcy route is not treated as opened of itself against every trader debtor. The set of documents is built from the original cheque, the endorsement, the bank's note and the enforcement petition. The bills door is pressed without a cheque that has no original.
Conclusion
Enforcement of a cheque is read from the bills door. It is not the pattern of an invoice or of an ordinary claim. The day of presentment is not here. The frame is on the page on the enforcement distinction between a cheque and an ordinary claim. The route of bills proceedings, the stamp of presentment, the invoice of invoice proceedings and the complaint of a dishonoured cheque stand apart. The basis is the text of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code, Law No. 2004.