In short
The question of whether the enforcement route particular to negotiable instruments closes if a cheque is not presented is not answered before the bank stamp is seen. Presentment is showing the cheque to the bank. Its period changes according to the places on the cheque, and this text does not write those days. The date of the bank stamp is placed beside the date the cheque was drawn. If one of the dates is missing, the period is not treated as chosen. A receivable on an invoice is not of itself erased because there is no stamp. The price of the goods can be read apart from the door of the cheque, and the same price is not claimed a second time through two doors.
What the stamp says
A record of insufficient funds, of no account, or of presentment having been made is the annotation the bank wrote on the cheque. If there is no annotation, the basis may look incomplete in a negotiable-instrument file. The door of enforcement on a cheque stands in the account of enforcement of a cheque debt. That text explains the route of proceedings for a cheque that has been presented, and it does not rebuild this distinction. The general frame of the negotiable-instrument route is in the negotiable-instrument proceedings text. Not every annotation is treated as having opened the door of bankruptcy. This distinction reads presentment never happening, or happening late. It does not add a number of days, and it does not announce a period before the places are seen.
The invoice receivable may still stand
A cheque is often given to pay a debt that already exists. If the period for presentment is missed, the strict proceedings arising from the cheque may narrow, but the price of the goods is not erased in the same sentence. The invoice for the sale can be discussed separately with enforcement on an invoice. The same price is not collected through two doors. If there was a part collection before, the balance is not the full amount of the cheque, and the invoice does not of itself reduce that balance to zero. If both the cheque and the invoice do not stand in the set of documents, it is not drawn which receivable continues. A photocopy of the cheque alone does not mean the invoice debt was closed.
A complaint is a separate door
A criminal complaint stands in the account of a complaint on a dishonoured cheque. The bank's annotation is not itself the complaint petition, and it carries no promise of collection. Whether the place of issue and the place of payment are the same place changes the period. This text does not turn that detail into a table of days. Service in the enforcement file shows which cheque is in dispute. Service does not stand in for the stamp, and service without a stamp is not treated as having proved presentment. No measure of the outcome is built before the front of the cheque and the stamp line are placed in the petition. The application papers should show these two faces.
The date of the stamp does not choose the authority
This article does not say whether the enforcement route closes if a cheque is not presented, before the date of the stamp and the date of the cheque stand side by side. The office being in Çankaya does not choose the competent authority in these proceedings. The district of the bank branch does not, on its own, establish the period either. The decision is not written before the places on the cheque and the bank document are seen. An illegible copy of the branch stamp is not treated as having shown the places either. If the application papers have no stamp, it is not announced that the negotiable-instrument door is open. The invoice is not stuck in place of the stamp either, and the period is not chosen before the place of issue is seen.
The two statutes do not set a number of days
The basis is the Turkish Commercial Code, Law No. 6102 and Law No. 2004 on Enforcement and Bankruptcy. The period changes according to the places on the cheque. A concrete day is not written into this body, and the names of the two statutes do not produce a ready-made table of days either. The narrowing of the negotiable-instrument route does not erase the invoice for the price of the goods. The two doors do not collect the same price a second time, and a number of days is not chosen before the places on the cheque are seen. If the date of the stamp and the date of the cheque are not side by side, it is not announced that presentment was late either. A day is not chosen before the place of issue and the place of payment are seen.
Conclusion
Presentment is read with the bank stamp. There is no quota of time in this text, and the lack of a stamp cannot erase the price of the goods. If a cheque is not presented, the enforcement route is not treated as having closed of itself. One does not say it closes before the stamp and the places are seen, and the invoice receivable is not treated as erased for that reason either. The frame sits on the enforcement and bankruptcy law page. If the cheque, the stamp, and any invoice are not side by side, it is not said which door continues. Service does not take the place of the stamp either. A table of days is not built with that gap, and the period is not announced before the place of issue is seen.