In short
An unauthorised signature on a company cheque is not the fact that a stamp was applied. The creditor looks at whether the signature on the cheque overlaps with the authority in the trade-registry circular. The company and the person who put the signature are two names. If one is the debtor, the other does not become the debtor by itself. The day on which presentment was made is not frozen in this article.
The circular binds the cheque
The trade name, the stamp, and the handwritten signature stand on the face of the cheque. The circular shows who could bind the company on that date. If the circular changed later, the authority on the date the cheque was issued is read. Today's list of directors does not by itself correct an old cheque. If the list shows a new person, that does not make the old signature authorised. The old signature is read with the old circular.
A stamp is not an authority document. The colour of the stamp, and its carrying the company's logo, do not establish the authority of the person who signed. Authority is the name and the form of representation in the circular. If the circular requires two signatures together, a single signature may not bind the company. The requirement of joint signature is compared with the single signature on the cheque. The requirement is not added from an oral practice.
Two names are two lines
If only the company's trade name is written in the enforcement request, the name of the person who signed stays outside. If only the person's name is written, the company's trade name stays outside. Which of them appears liable on the cheque is read from the signature and the sentence of representation. This text does not say the company is always released. The receivable is not reduced to zero by itself because there was no authority to represent. If the price of the goods stands on an invoice, that price can be read separately from the debate about the cheque.
If the name of the person who signed cannot be read on the cheque, the person is not written as the debtor by guesswork. A guess is not likening the signature to a name in the circular. If the handwriting cannot be read, the fact that it could not be read is written in the minute or in the objection. An unread signature is not treated as the signature of the nearest director. If an expert or a comparison is needed, that is the file's own work. This article does not give the result of a comparison.
The day of presentment is not here
Whether the cheque was presented to the bank is read from the endorsement on the cheque. The date of the endorsement is not turned into a number of days in this article. The time limit is in the endorsement and in the text of the frame itself. Without the text, a day of presentment is not invented. An invented day does not make an unauthorised signature authorised. The question of authority and the question of presentment are two separate lines.
An endorsement of insufficient funds does not by itself show that the signature was authorised. The endorsement writes how the bank saw the account. Authority is read from the circular. If the two documents conflict, the conflict is left in the file. The conflict is not interpreted in favour of the stamp. A stamp does not take the place of the circular.
An objection on a note, and a complaint, are separate doors
The debtor saying, on their own promissory note, that this signature is not mine is not a copy of the gap of authority on a company cheque. The objection on the note discusses whether the signature belongs to the person. The question on the cheque is whether the signature that does belong binds the company. If the two questions are folded into the same petition, the answer is mixed as well. Which paper is being discussed is chosen from the heading.
The criminal door after a cheque with insufficient funds is not the measure of sanction of this page. This article sets no measure. If there are criminal papers, those papers are in their own file. Enforcement proceedings do not mean that a criminal file was opened. The debtor line of the enforcement proceedings is built from the circular and the cheque. One does not go after the person, or the company, before the line is built.
An endorsement does not by itself correct an unauthorised signature of issue. The chain of endorsement is read separately. The drawer company and the person who put the endorsement are not folded into the same line. Each signature is assessed by looking at the authority document on its own date. If there is no date, today's circular is not written onto the old cheque.
The enforcement door of a cheque is in enforcement of a cheque debt, and the chain of endorsement is in the article on a customer's cheque. The trade name on the invoice is in the company on the invoice, the objection to a signature on a note is in a signature on a note, and the door after an endorsement of insufficient funds is in the article on a complaint.
The circular and the date of issue
This article places side by side the signature on the cheque, the signature circular on the date of issue, and the debtor's name in the enforcement request. The office being in Çankaya does not change the enforcement office where the cheque proceedings will be opened. The competent authority is read from the enforcement request and from the record on the cheque.
Conclusion
An unauthorised cheque signature is read with the date of the circular and the name on the cheque side by side. A stamp is not treated as an authority document. The frame is on the enforcement and bankruptcy page.
The basis is the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 and the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code No. 2004.