In the liquidation of a simple partnership, what needs protecting is sometimes a machine or real estate, sometimes business income, and sometimes an accounting record that is about to be deleted. An interim injunction is considered for the protection of goods or rights in dispute; a precautionary attachment, if its conditions are met, to secure the collection of a monetary claim; and preservation of evidence for evidence that may be lost. These routes do not replace one another. The correct application requires documenting the concrete danger, framing a proportionate request and monitoring the different time limits that run after a decision.
Does filing a liquidation action automatically protect the assets?
A liquidation claim does not automatically block bank accounts, and it does not automatically remove the partners' de facto control over the business or the powers of disposal recorded in the registry. While the action is pending, stock may decrease, collections may be redirected to another account or records may disappear. On the other hand, not every sale or money transfer is asset diversion. Transactions that endanger the liquidation through ordinary commercial activity must be separated on the basis of documents.
Article 638 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) on the partnership's asset regime and the liquidation provisions in articles 642–644 must be assessed together. An item whose ownership was contributed to the partnership as a contribution is not returned directly to the person who brought it when the partnership ends. Simply taking specific assets as one's own share, without taking into account debts, advances, expenses and contributions, does not satisfy the liquidation procedure. For this reason, a protection request must explain which asset should be included in the liquidation account and why. [K1] In this connection, the topic of Withdrawal from a Simple Partnership and Expulsion of a Partner should also be considered together.
How are interim injunction, precautionary attachment and preservation of evidence distinguished?
Interim injunction for goods or rights in dispute
Under articles 389–399 of the HMK, an interim injunction serves to prevent a future decision from being rendered ineffective. Preventing the transfer of a specific machine claimed to have been taken into the partnership account, or protecting the right in dispute, are examples. A concrete link must be established between the requested intervention and the subject of the main action. Requesting a general prohibition over all of the respondent's assets, unrelated to the liquidation dispute, does not replace this link. [K2]
Precautionary attachment for collection of a monetary claim
Under articles 257–268 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK), precautionary attachment secures a monetary claim. The rule concerns a monetary debt that is not secured by a pledge and has matured. For a claim that has not matured, the debtor's lack of a known place of residence and the evasion and fraudulent-act grounds stated in the law are assessed separately. For a matured claim, it is not correct to say that the same specific evasion grounds are always required. [K4]
The expectation that money will be payable at the end of the liquidation does not by itself mean a claim that is due and prima facie proven. At the stage of the liquidation account, the legal cause and amount of the claim are examined. Protecting the money in the bank on the ground that it is partnership property in dispute, and placing a collection guarantee on the debtor's other account, are different requests. The fact that an account holds money does not by itself determine the legal characterization. For details on this subject, see the article Return of Capital in a Simple Partnership.
Preservation of evidence for information at risk of loss
Under articles 400–405 of the HMK, preservation of evidence allows an on-site examination, expert review or hearing of witnesses so that the facts can be proven later. Recording the current quantity of stock in the warehouse, examining the technical condition of the production line and identifying transaction records that may be deleted can be considered within this framework. [K2]
Preservation of evidence does not automatically prevent the sale of goods, and it does not conclusively decide the partnership share, ownership or a debt. It is also not the same institution as the action for determination within the meaning of HMK 106. Determining whether a machine is in place is one thing; ruling on whom it belongs to is another. In the same case, an interim injunction may be requested together with preservation of evidence, but the conditions of each request must be shown separately. The article Interim Injunction and Precautionary Attachment examines this subject from a different angle. More detailed information on the topic is available in our article What Is Preservation of Evidence?.
How are approximate proof and concrete danger established?
Under HMK 390/3, the party requesting the measure must prove approximately that it is right on the merits of the claim. At this stage, not all disputes in the main action are resolved, but mere abstract suspicion is not enough. The partnership agreement, capital contributions, invoices, bank movements, inventory and correspondence between the parties should be presented together, to explain the partnership relationship and the link to the assets. [K2]
The danger is also documented. An imminent emptying of the warehouse, a sale announcement, a record showing that the POS collection account has been changed, or server records that will be deleted automatically within a short time can be made concrete. The application explains the date of the event, how it became known, why waiting would cause a problem, and why a lighter protection would not be sufficient. The counterparty's defense that the account movement was an ordinary debt payment must also be evaluated against the existing documents.
An injunction granted without hearing the other side depends on there being a necessity to protect the rights immediately. Tension between the partners alone does not create that necessity. It must be explained which evidence or asset would be endangered by notification, and why. The court's decision must show, without leaving doubt in practice, the property, account, transaction and limit to which it applies. [K2]
Risk, appropriate request and document matching
The examples below are not requests that are accepted automatically. The connection to the partnership, the independent rights of third parties and the needs of the business are assessed separately in each file.
| Concrete risk | Request that may be assessed | Information and documents supporting the application |
|---|---|---|
| Sale of a specific machine | Prohibition of transfer, or an appropriate custody measure, with the connection to the dispute shown | Serial number, invoice, payment trail, sale announcement, current use |
| Redirection of bank or POS income | Injunction with a defined account and amount limit; precautionary attachment only where the purpose is solely to secure a monetary claim | Account holder, IBAN, POS agreement, record of account change, daily collections |
| Rapid change in warehouse stock | Preservation of evidence through expert and on-site examination; separate safekeeping if necessary | Warehouse address, count records, dispatch notes, product and serial lists |
| Deletion of server and accounting data | Determination by an expert for a defined period and data sets; necessary preservation order | System description, retention period, access logs, deletion notice |
| Disruption of the lease relationship or business use | Temporary protection consistent with the right under the contract, and determination of the existing situation | Lease agreement, parties, notices, payment records, use documents |
| Loss of value from stopping activity | Measure limited to a transaction or asset; evaluation of mandatory payments | Wage, rent, energy and supply schedule, cash flow, perishable stock |
The court may decide, within the scope of the request and the conditions, on safekeeping, handing over to a custodian (yediemin), or requiring or prohibiting an act. Where necessary, keeping of records or sealing under HMK 406 may also arise. However, closing all accounts and making wages and rent impossible to pay, in the name of protecting the business, may reduce the value of the business that the protection is meant to preserve. This economic effect must be explained when the scope of the intervention is determined. [K2]
If the lease contract was concluded in the name of only one partner, the liquidation action does not automatically make the other partner a tenant. In bank and payment institution records too, the contracting party, the account holder and the power of representation are examined separately. An order that affects the independent right of a third party cannot be established merely by showing a dispute between partners.
How do jurisdiction, venue and the parties affect the application?
An interim injunction is requested before the action from the court with subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction over the substantive claim; after the action is filed, it is requested from the court hearing the main action. A liquidation of a simple partnership cannot be equated with the action for dissolution of co-ownership (ortaklığın giderilmesi) before the civil court of peace merely because the word "partnership" is used. Without a commercial case or another special reason for jurisdiction, the general competent court is the civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi). If the conditions of a commercial dispute are met, the commercial court of first instance (asliye ticaret mahkemesi) comes into play; not every simple partnership dispute is automatically a commercial case. [K2, K10]
Because a simple partnership has no legal personality, it is not enough to name only the business name as the defendant. The identities of the partners, their powers of representation, the effect of the liquidation claim on all partners, and the name in which the asset is registered are assessed. Whether the claim is directed at the correct person under substantive law, that is, standing (husumet), is a separate question. If a precautionary attachment is requested, it is also explained which person is responsible for which debt. [K1, K2]
For preservation of evidence before an action, HMK 401 provides a different option: in addition to the court that will hear the main case, an application may be made to the civil court of peace where the object to be examined or the witness is located. For evidence determination requests after the action is filed, the court hearing the action is competent. This special option does not mean that the same courts are automatically competent for a pre-action interim injunction. [K2]
Time matrix: obtaining the decision is not the end of the work
Time limits are not added together to form a single calendar. Each step has its own starting point, required documents and consequence. Service, electronic service, public holidays and, where applicable, the effect of mediation must be calculated on the file.
| Step | Time limit and starting point | Critical consequence or distinction |
|---|---|---|
| Requesting enforcement of the injunction, HMK 393/1 | One week from the pronouncement (tefhim) or service of the decision on the party requesting the injunction | If not requested in time, the injunction lapses automatically, even if an action has been filed |
| Completing a pre-action injunction, HMK 397/1 | Two weeks from the date enforcement of the decision was requested | The main action is filed; the document is presented to the enforcing officer, placed in the file and a receipt is obtained |
| Objection to an injunction granted without hearing, HMK 394/2 | Where ready at the time of enforcement, from enforcement; otherwise one week from service of the enforcement record | Objection may be raised on conditions, jurisdiction and security |
| Objection by a third party affected by the injunction, HMK 394/3 | One week from learning of it | Clear violation of interest, the conditions of the injunction and security are assessed |
| Objection to an urgent preservation of evidence decision, HMK 403 | One week from service of the relevant documents | Failure to serve before the determination does not remove the right to object later |
| Requesting enforcement of the precautionary attachment, İİK 261 | Ten days from the date the decision was given | Not to be confused with the start of pronouncement or service in the injunction |
| Completing an attachment before an action or enforcement proceeding, İİK 264/1 | From the enforcement of the attachment; if carried out in the creditor's absence, seven days from service of the record on the creditor | An enforcement request or an action is required; further time limits may arise at later stages |
The start of the time limit in HMK 393/1 was amended by article 41 of Law No. 7251. Older sources that base the time limit on the date of the decision do not reflect the current injunction rule. For the time limit under İİK 261, the Constitutional Court, in its decision E.2025/142, K.2025/254 of December 11, 2025, rejected the request for annulment of the wording that runs the period from the date of the decision. The starting points of the two institutions must be monitored separately. [K3, K5]
Which time limits does mediation affect?
If the dispute is subject to mediation as a condition precedent to litigation, article 18/A/16 of Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes provides that the time limit for filing the action under HMK 397/1 and İİK 264/1 does not run from the application to the mediation bureau until the final minutes. This provision does not suspend the time limit for requesting enforcement of the injunction under HMK 393 or for enforcing the precautionary attachment under İİK 261. Nor can it generally be extended to all enforcement and objection time limits. [K6]
Whether the liquidation action is subject to mediation must be determined together with the content of the claim and its nature as a commercial case. After the final minutes, it must not be assumed in every case that a new two-week or seven-day period starts from scratch; the time that ran before the application must also be taken into account. Where there is an urgent need for protection, the outcome of the mediation meetings must not be awaited in a way that leads to loss of evidence.
How should digital evidence and trade secrets be protected?
The petition for preservation of evidence must state the fact to be determined, the questions and the risk of loss. Instead of "all accounts should be examined", auditable questions should be framed, such as to which account the POS collections on specific dates were transferred, or where specific stocks are located. No further steps are taken until the determination costs have been deposited in advance. As a rule, notice is given to the other party; where there is a compelling urgency, the documents required by law must be served after the determination. [K2, K3]
An expert should be asked not to resolve the legal dispute but to establish the technical fact. In a digital examination, the data source, the date of examination, the copying method and the integrity check must be explained in the minutes. These method suggestions do not mean that a single mandatory technical standard exists in every file; expertise is required depending on the system used.
Partner status does not give authority to use another person's password, enter a server without permission or transfer all customer data to a personal account. Within the scope set by the court, a limited examination of the relevant period and records, restriction of access and separation of irrelevant personal data should be considered. The purpose of protecting a right does not remove the principles of purpose-relatedness and proportionality under KVKK. Special supervision conditions apply to employees' communication accounts. [K8, K9]
Is appointing a liquidator the same as appointing a trustee (kayyım)?
Under TBK 644, liquidation is, as a rule, carried out by all partners acting unanimously. If the partners cannot agree on the liquidator, each of them may request an appointment from the judge. This duty is aimed at carrying out the liquidation work; it does not mean that once a case is filed, the court takes over the entire management of the business. [K1]
The legal basis, necessity and limit of authority must also be shown separately for a request for temporary management intervention or for a trustee (kayyım). Instead of removing all powers of the existing manager, it can be argued which transaction should be restricted and for what reason. The liquidator's fee is included in the expense account; under the conditions of TBK 644, it is first met from partnership assets and, if that is not possible, jointly and severally by the partners.
Security, expenses and the consequences of unjustified protection
Under HMK 392, security protects against the possible damages of the other party and of third parties. The court may decide not to require security, giving reasons, where there is an official document or other conclusive evidence, or where the circumstances and conditions so require. A person benefiting from legal aid does not need to provide security. Merely saying that one is right does not provide an exemption, and the law does not set a fixed percentage for all measures. [K2]
In precautionary attachment, article 259 of the İİK applies: no security is sought for a claim based on a judgment (ilam); for a document with the nature of a judgment, the court decides whether security is required. The security exceptions in HMK 392 do not apply automatically to precautionary attachment; the security for that request is assessed under its own legal basis. Fees, expert costs, on-site examination, safekeeping and enforcement costs are separate items, distinct from security. [K4]
An unjustified interim injunction may give rise to liability for damages under HMK 399, and an unjustified precautionary attachment under İİK 259. The damage and its connection with the protective measure must be made concrete. The one-month regulation on the refund of the injunction security is not the same period as the one-year limitation period for compensation under HMK 399. Unduly disproportionate stopping of the business, loss of perishable goods and unnecessary safekeeping costs must therefore be assessed from the outset. [K2, K4]
Objection, legal remedies and the end of protection
For an injunction granted without hearing, the objection under HMK 394 applies; for a rejection decision and a decision made against the party against whom the injunction was granted, the distinction of legal remedies under HMK 391/3 is observed. A legal remedy is also open against a decision given on the objection. In an appeal, the general two-week service period and the special objection periods must not be confused. A decision on the injunction given as a result of appellate review is final. [K2, K3]
For precautionary attachment, article 258 of the İİK applies to rejection decisions and decisions made against a party present; article 265 of the İİK applies to objection against a decision given without hearing. An objection to a preservation of evidence decision is not identical to these remedies, and the probative value of the expert report is discussed in the main proceedings. [K2–K4]
The measure may be changed or lifted against security, or upon a change in circumstances. The existence of an objection or legal remedy does not mean that enforcement stops in every case. The parties cannot enforce the decision with their own power; where coercion is needed, authorized public officials act in accordance with the law. Breach of an injunction order may also arise under HMK 398; the current time limit for objecting to a decision under that article is two weeks from service. [K2, K7]
This article is for general information only. Information and documents sent to the firm are considered only for legal assessment and within the scope of the services undertaken, subject to professional secrecy and personal data protection obligations. A secure communication channel for sensitive documents should be requested from the firm. Initial contact does not mean that the matter has been accepted.
For the problem of access to records, see rights against a partner who does not render accounts; for the security framework after a settlement, see the liquidation protocol. For the general stages, the main guide Liquidation of a Simple Partnership and Legal Processes may also be consulted.
Related article: Calculation of the Liquidation Share in a Simple Partnership.
Conclusion
In the liquidation of a simple partnership, effective protection depends on correctly defining the asset and the danger. A specific asset or right, a monetary claim and evidence that may be lost each have different routes of application. The scope of the request must take into account the value of the business and the rights of third parties; after the decision, the time limits for enforcement, action, notice and objection must be monitored separately. Protecting the liquidation account requires the most appropriate intervention possible, without stopping the business's activity unnecessarily.
Frequently Asked Questions
If a partner withdraws money, are all bank accounts automatically frozen?
Not automatically. The connection of the account to the dispute, the reason for the transaction, the danger and the amount requested must be explained. If the purpose is solely to secure a monetary claim, the conditions for precautionary attachment are assessed.
Does obtaining a preservation of evidence win the liquidation action?
No. The determination serves to preserve the existing facts. The partnership relationship, ownership, debt and liquidation share are assessed in the main action together with the other evidence.
Is there a one-week period for an injunction from the date of the decision?
The current rule under HMK 393/1 is one week from the pronouncement or service of the decision on the party requesting the injunction. The ten-day period for requesting enforcement of a precautionary attachment runs from the date the decision was given.
Must enforcement of an injunction be requested while mediation is ongoing?
Yes. The suspension of the time limit for filing the action by the mediation requirement does not suspend the time limits for requesting enforcement of an injunction or of a precautionary attachment.
Can a determination be made at the warehouse without informing the other partner?
Where there is a necessity to protect rights, the court may carry out the determination without prior notice under HMK 403. The documents are then served and the right to object is preserved. This regulation does not give anyone a right of forced entry.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 6098 on the Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu): arts. 620, 638, 642–645. Ministry of Labour and Social Security, official copy of the law.
- Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu): arts. 2, 6, 10, 50, 106, 341, 345, 362 and 389–406. Ministry of Justice, law record; the relevant provisions have been assessed together with the amending laws listed below.
- Law No. 7251: arts. 40–44, 50; in particular HMK art. 393 on the current start of the time limit. Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM), text of the adopted law.
- Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İcra ve İflas Kanunu), No. 2004: arts. 257–268. Ministry of Justice, law record.
- Constitutional Court: E.2025/142, K.2025/254, December 11, 2025; Official Gazette (RG) of March 9, 2026, no. 33191. Official decision record. Rejection of the application for annulment concerning the start of the time limit in İİK art. 261(1).
- Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu): art. 18/A/16. Ministry of Justice, official text.
- Law No. 7499: art. 37/10-d, amendment to HMK art. 398/5. TBMM, text of the adopted law.
- Personal Data Protection Authority (Kişisel Verileri Koruma Kurumu): conditions for processing personal data; the ground for protecting a right under art. 5 of Law No. 6698.
- Personal Data Protection Board (Kişisel Verileri Koruma Kurulu): official announcement on principle decision no. 2026/2035 of September 16, 2026; proportionality and gradual supervision.
- Law No. 6102 on the Turkish Commercial Code (Türk Ticaret Kanunu): arts. 4–5. Ministry of Justice, official law record.