Decision on Suspension of Obligation for Payment of Debt which Ended in Bankruptcy at PT Sarana Yeoman Sembada

Edi Wahjuni; Ayu Citra Santyaningtyas; Jelita Darma

doi:10.35877/454RI.daengku1035

Edi Wahjuni Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Jember, Jember, Indonesia (ID)
Ayu Citra Santyaningtyas Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Jember, Jember, Indonesia (ID)
Jelita Darma Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Jember, Jember, Indonesia (ID)

https://doi.org/10.35877/454RI.daengku1035

Keywords: Judge's Consideration, Simple Evidence, Transfer form

Viewed = 0 time(s)

Abstract

The aim of this research is to find out about the simple evidentiary regulations in Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and PKPU. In addition, to find out the formal evidence as well as the judge's legal considerations in the decision to postpone the payment of debt obligations that ended in bankruptcy at PT. Sarana Yeoman Sembada. This research uses normative legal research. The results of this study are that the simple evidence referred to in the determination of bankruptcy is also contained in the PKPU arrangement in Article 222 of the Bankruptcy Law and PKPU. In addition, the Bilyet Giro submitted in the PKPU application against PT. Sarana Yeoman Sembada is invalid as evidence because it does not meet the formal requirements of the Bilyet Giro and violates the provisions contained in the Bankruptcy Law and PKPU, so that the bankruptcy decision given by the Panel of Judges to PT. Sarana Yeoman Sembada was declared wrong because the application which was granted by the Panel of Judges came from an application submitted by the Petitioner who had no legal standing.

References

Adiguna, Ayu Anisaa dan Muhammad, Kedudukan Debitor Utama Dan Personal Guarantor Dalam Permohonan Pernyataan Pailit (Jakarta: Guepedia, 2019).

Andani, Devi dan Wiwin Budi Pratiwi, ‘Prinsip Pembuktian Sederhana Dalam Permohonan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang’, Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum, 28.3 (2021).

Asra, Kepailitan Korporasi (Jakarta: Diadit Media, 2014).

Hariyadi, Hasdi, ‘Restrukturisasi Utang Sebagai Upaya Pencegahan Kepailitan Pada Perseroan Terbatas’, SIGn Jurnal Hukum, 1.2 (2020), 119–35 <https://doi.org/10.37276/sjh.v1i2.61>

Kasdi, Regina Nitami, and Suyud Margono, ‘Analisis Putusan Pengadilan Niaga Terkait Akibat Hukum Permohonan Pkpu Yang Diajukan Oleh Pihak Yang Tidak Berwenang (Studi Kasus Putusan Pengadilan Niaga Pada Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat Nomor 24/Pdt.Sus-Pkpu/2018/Pn.Niaga.Jkt.Pst)’, Jurnal Hukum Adigama, 2.2 (2019).

Long, Sang, ‘PT. Sarana Yeoman Sembada’, Indonetwork.Co.Id, 2019 <https://pt_sys.indonetwork.co.id/info> [accessed 16 July 2022]

Moechthar, Oemar, Eksistensi, Fungsi Dan Tujuan Hukum Dalam Perspektif Teori Dan Filsafat Hukum (Jakarta: Kencana, 2020).

Nugroho, Susanti Adi, Hukum Kepailitan Di Indonesia Dalam Teori Dan Praktik Serta Penerapan Hukumnya (Jakarta: Kencana, 2018).

Patner, Husendro dan, ‘Babak Baru Kasus Pailit PT. Sarana Yeoman Sembada’, Law.Co.Id, 2021 <https://hnr-law.co.id/2021/05/08/babak-baru-kasus-pailit-pt-sarana-yeoman-sembada/> [accessed 16 July 2022]

Peraturan Bank Indonesia Nomor 18/41/PBI/2016 tentang Bilyet Giro.

Prananingtyas, Paramita, Hukum Surat Berharga (Semarang: Yoga Pratama, 2018).

Putriyanti, Erma Defiana dan Tata Wijayanta, ‘Kajian Hukum Tentang Penerapan Pembuktian Sederhana Dalam Perkara Kepailitan Asuransi’, Jurnal Mimbar Hukum, 22.3 (2010).

Putusan Perkara Nomor: 42/Pdt,Sus-PKPU/PN. Niaga Mdn.

Rashid, Marva Yordana Ashila, ‘Analisis Terhadap Putusan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang (Pkpu) Pada Pt. Asuransi Jiwa Kresna (Studi Putusan Pengadilan Niaga Perkara Nomor 389/Pdt.Sus-Pkpu/ 2020/Pn-Niaga.Jkt.Pst)’, 1.1 (2019).

Rohendi, Acep, ‘Perdamaian Dalam Kepailitan Sebagai Upaya Penyelesaian Utang Piutang Antara Debitur Dengan Para Kreditur’, 6.2 (2020).

Sancaya, Rengga, ‘Putusan Pailit Yang Final and Binding Di Tingkat Pertama Digugat Ke MK’, Detikcom, 2021 <https://news.detik.com/berita/d-5579391/putusan-pailit-yang-final-and-binding-di-tingkat-pertama-digugat-ke-mk> [accessed 16 July 2022]

Sidharta, Iwan, ‘Pembuktian Sederhana Dalam Putusan Pailit (Studi Kasus Perkara Nomor 515 K/Pdt.Sus/2016)’, Jurnal Legal Reasong, 1.1 (2018).

Silalahi, Udin, and Beatrix Tanjung, ‘Perjanjian Perdamaian Pada Proses Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang Berulang: Kedudukan Dan Implikasi’, Undang: Jurnal Hukum, 4.2 (2021), 371–401 <https://doi.org/10.22437/ujh.4.2.371-401>

Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan PKPU.