scholarly journals Tax Debt in the Bankruptcy Dispute: Industries Badja Garuda Inc. v.s. Tax Office of Medan Belawan

Rechtsidee ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rilda Murniati ◽  
Richmond Cosmas Tobias
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
District Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Law ◽  
Study Type

The biggest problem for the debtor who is the business actor is his inability to repay the loan to the creditors in case the business activities have problems. The inability to pay may result in the debtor being petitioned for bankruptcy by the creditor or the debtor himself. Curator as the party who performs the management and the settlement of all debtor debts is obliged to make a bill list based on the nature and rights of the bills of creditors as stipulated in Act Number 37 Year 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Obligation for Payment of Debts (the Law 37/2004). The problem that occurred in the case of Bankruptcy of Industries Badja Garuda Inc. (IBG Inc.) that the Tax Office of Medan Belawan (Tax Office) made a legal effort against the list of tax bills made by the curator of IBG Inc. which set Tax Office as the concurrent creditor through renvoi procedures to the Court Commerce so that the Tax Office loses its precedent over tax debt as stipulated in the Law of Commercial Court refuses the request so that the cassation law is also applied to the Supreme Court which in its decision strengthen the decision of the District Court. For that reason, there is a review effort but the Supreme Court in its sentence Number 45 PK/Pdt.Sus/Pailit/2016 still reinforces the previous verdict. This research is normative research with descriptive type and problem approach applied is normative applied with case study type of court decision. The result of the research indicates that the Tax Office has lost its predecessor right as regulated in Article 21 Paragraph (4) in Act Number 16 Year 2009 regarding General Provisions and Tax Procedures (the Law 16/2009) on the status of tax debt of IBG Inc.

Leading Decisions of the Supreme Court of Israel and Extracts of the Judgment

1997 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 754-802 ◽  
Author(s):  
Omi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
District Court ◽  
Conditional Release ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
State Of Israel

Ganimat v. The State of Israel (1995) 49(iv) P.D. 589.The appellant was indicted in the Jerusalem Magistrate Court for two incidents of car theft. His detention was requested on the grounds that he posed a “danger to society”. The Magistrate Court agreed to his arrest, holding that a custom has been established whereby custody may be justified in crimes which have become “a nationwide scourge”, including car theft. The District Court rejected the appeal. The appellant was granted permission to appeal the decision in the Supreme Court (decision of Dorner J. and Barak J.; Cheshin J. dissenting) and his conditional release was ordered. However, it was decided to hold Special Proceedings in order to discuss some of the important issues raised by the case. The principal constitutional question raised by the case was whether the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty influences the interpretation of the existing law, in the present case, the law of arrest as regulated by the Law of Criminal Procedure.

scholarly journals EFFECTIVENESS IN IMPLEMENTING SUPREME COURT REGULATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA NUMBER 2 YEAR 2015 ON PROCEDURES SETTLEMENT OF SIMPLE LAWSUIT IN SETTLING THE CIVIL CASES

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 2
Author(s):  
Wiryatmo Lukito Totok ◽  
Anik Iftitah
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Culture ◽  
District Court ◽  
Code System ◽  
Medium Term ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Civil Cases ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Effectiveness Index

President Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 2 Year 2015 on the National Medium Term Development Plan 2015-2019 mandates to carry out Reformation of the Civil Code system which is easy and fast, in an effort to improve the competitiveness of national economy. Related to this, the Supreme Court answered the vacancy of a simple lawsuit by issuing Regulation of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia (PERMA) Number 2 Year 2015 on procedures for settlement of simple suit in settling civil cases. The empirical juridical research in the Court of Kediri showed that the implementation of Regulation of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 2 Year 2015 made the lawsuit procedure simpler and very effective and in accordance with the principle of simple, fast and light cost. Effectiveness Index of Regulation of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 2 year 2015 at Kediri District Court Class I B was in the "good" category, influenced by substance rule of the law, legal culture, structure of the law, and community knowledge. Keywords: Effectiveness, Simple Lawsuit Received: 07 January, 2017; Accepter: 15 March, 2017

scholarly journals Case Review of Surabaya District Court Decision No. 672/Pdt.G/2016/PN.Sby about Unlawful Sale and Purchase Agreement of Land and Building

NORMA ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 37
Author(s):  
Ramzi Maulana Arghie
Keyword(s):  
Bargaining Power ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
District Court ◽  
Case Review ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
The Law

The research, entitled Case Study of Surabaya District Court Decision No. 672/Pdt.G/2016/PN.Sby about Unlawful Sale and Purchase Agreement of Land and Building aims to find out whether or not Dirk Tatipata is said to have defaulted on the Sale and Purchase Agreement (PPJB) of land, which he did with Ronald Sanjaya, how the legal protection for Dirk Tatipata as the party who was harmed by the decision of the Surabaya District Court, This is normative legal research, Based on the results of the study, it can be concluded that legally, it is clear that Dirk Tatipata does not have high bargaining power and is a seller of land and buildings on Jl. Sleep No. 103 that has been done in front and signed by Notary Anita Lucia Kendarto, S.H., M.Kn. with several letters/deeds. Thus, legal resistance is still being carried out by carrying out a lawsuit in the land and building dispute case at the Surabaya District Court, and ending his defeat coupled with a penalty of trial fees and payment for his unlawful actions harmed Ronald Sanjaya as the legal owner of the land and buildingsKeywords: Agreement, Sale, and Purchase of Land and Buildings, Against the Law

scholarly journals The Urgency of Trademark Registration for Business Actors (Case Study of Supreme Court Decision No 575 K / Pdt.Sus-HKI / 2020 Between Ruben Samuel Onsu vs PT Ayam Geprek Benny Sujono)

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 250-259
Author(s):  
Nurhani Fithriah
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Geographical Indications ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Business People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Trademark Registration

Brand registration is very important for business people. A brand is one of the distinguishing entities between the business activities of business actors. The problem occurs when business actors already have a trademark which is then well known in the community but in fact they have not registered the trademark, as experienced by Ruben Samuel Onsu with his Geprek chicken business. However, in its development, it turns out that there are other business actors using the same mark but have registered the mark. This research was conducted using a normative method through a statutory approach and concepts. This research examines the Supreme Court's decision rejecting the appeal from Ruben Samuel Onsu and analyzes the urgency and procedures for trademark registration. Based on the research results, trademark law in Indonesia is regulated in Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications. The terms and procedures for application for registration of a mark are regulated in Article 4 - Article 8 and further regulated in the Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights No. registration of a mark and being recognized as the legal owner of the mark and rights to the mark are obtainedafter the mark is registered. Ruben Onsu's Bensu mark was declared invalid because Ruben Onsu was not the first party to register the mark, and the Supreme Court decided to cancel all trademark applications made by Ruben Onsu.

scholarly journals Pengujian Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Marwan Hsb
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Form Of Government ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic

Article 24C Section (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia authorizes the Constitutional Court to reviewthe law against the constitution. However, when referring to the hierarchy of legislation, the law has the equal hierarchy with government regulation in lieu of law. It makes a question whether the Constitutional Court truly has the authority to review government regulation in lieu of law against the constitution? Based on the research in this paper, it was found that by the Constitutional Court Decision Number 138/PUU-VII/2009, the Constitutional Court stated that the authority to review government regulation in lieu of law under the authority of the Constitutional Court because the substance of government regulation in lieu of law is similar with the substance of law. So, the Constitutional Court has the authority to review a government regulation in lieu of law materially. Such decision is correct; the Constitutional Court has the authority to review a government regulation in lieu of law in material because the substance is similar with the law. While formally reviewing should be the authority of the Supreme Court due to government regulation in lieu of law formally is in the form of government regulation

scholarly journals KILKA UWAG DOTYCZĄCYCH POWOŁYWANIA CZŁONKÓW ZARZĄDU SPÓŁEK KAPITAŁOWYCH

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 23
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Gawrysiak-Zabłocka
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Legal Capacity ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Company Directors ◽  
The Law ◽  
Polish Code

SOME REMARKS ON THE APPOINTMENT OF COMPANY DIRECTORSSummaryThe article discusses selected issues concerning the appointment of company directors. In the first part the focus is on the practical application of Art. 18 of the Polish Code of Commercial Companies (Kodeks spółek handlowych, KSH), which provides that only natural persons having full legal capacity and not convicted for crimes or offences mentioned in that provision can be members of a company’s board of managers. In the light of the inconsistent rulings handed down by the Polish Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) it is not clear whether the registering court, which has information available from the National Criminal Register (Krajowy Rejestr Skazanych), may refuse to enter a resolution which has been passed at a shareholders’ meeting but is in breach of the law. In my opinion, the first premise in the ruling handed down by seven Supreme Court judges on 18 September 2013 (case III CZP 13/13) is flawed. Not only does it contradict the Supreme Court decision of 24 July 2013 (case III CNP 1/13), but also its consequences can hardly be reconciled with the consequences of the second premise. In the second part of the study I use the provision on the composition of a brokerage board to show that specific regulations may prove ineffective if they only give cursory attention to an issue, with no reference to what is stipulated by the KSH.

scholarly journals PEMBUKTIAN PERKARA KARTEL DI INDONESIA DENGAN MENGGUNAKAN BUKTI TIDAK LANGSUNG (INDIRECT EVIDENCE)

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Udin Silalahi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Indirect Evidence ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Case Study Approach ◽  
Relevant Market ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Study Approach ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Article 5

ABSTRAKDalam rangka membuktikan terjadinya pelanggaran Pasal 5 (kartel harga), Pasal 9 (kartel wilayah pemasaran), dan Pasal 11 (kartel produksi) Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999, masing-masing pasal mensyaratkan pemenuhan unsur perjanjian. Namun demikian karena kartel biasanya dilakukan secara diam-diam, maka KPPU membutuhkan bukti tidak langsung untuk membuktikan adanya perjanjian kartel di antara pelaku usaha. Rumusan masalah dalam penelitian ini adalah 1) bagaimana penetapan pasar bersangkutan oleh KPPU dalam Putusan Nomor 17/KPPU-I/2010 dan Putusan Nomor 08/KPPU-I/2014 dihubungkan dengan Peraturan KPPU Nomor 3 Tahun 2009; dan 2) bagaimana penggunaan bukti tidak langsung oleh KPPU dalam Putusan Nomor 17/KPPU-I/2010 dan Putusan Nomor 08/KPPU-I/2014 dihubungkan dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999. Jenis penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan undang-undang, pendekatan kasus, dan pendekatan konseptual. Dari hasil penelitian yang dilakukan diperoleh kesimpulan bahwa KPPU tidak konsisten dalam menetapkan pasar bersangkutan dalam Putusan Nomor 17/KPPU-I/2010 dan Putusan Nomor 08/KPPU-I/2014. Di samping itu dalam membuktikan dan memutuskan terjadinya pelanggaran Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999, KPPU hanya menggunakan bukti tidak langsung. Dalam Putusan Nomor 294 K/PDT.SUS/2012, majelis hakim kasasi menolak penggunaan bukti tidak langsung. Sedangkan dalam Putusan Nomor 221 K/PDT.SUS-KPPU/2016, majelis hakim menerima penggunaan bukti tidak langsung. Namun demikian dalam pertimbangan hukumnya majelis hakim tidak dimuat dasar hukum tentang diterimanya bukti tidak langsung sebagai alat bukti dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999. Di samping itu tidak pula dimuat pertimbangan hukum tentang prinsip pembuktian yang mensyaratkan sekurang-kurangnya dua alat bukti yang sah dalam memutus pelanggaran atas Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999.Kata kunci: kartel, pasar bersangkutan, bukti tidak langsung.ABSTRACTIn order to prove the violation of Article 5 (price cartel), Article 9 (allocation of territory cartel), and Article 11 (production cartel) of Law Number 5 of 1999, each article requires the fulfillment of agreement element. However since the cartels between the businesses actors are conducted in silent, therefore the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) needs an indirect evidence to prove the existence of cartel agreement between them. The concerns of this analysis are 1) how the KPPU determines the relevant market based on the KPPU’s Decision Number 17/KPPU-I/2010 and Decision Number 08/KPPU-I/2014 in relation to KPPU Regulation Number 3 of 2009, and 2) how the evidentiary process using indirect evidence by the KPPU based on Decision Number 17/KPPU-I/2010 and Decision Number 08/KPPU-I/2014 in relation to Law Number 5 of 1999. The research method of this analysis is normative legal research by using legal approach, case study approach and conceptual approach. The end result shows that KPPU is inconsistent to determine the relevant market on the Decision Number 17/KPPU-I/2010 and the Decision Number 08/KPPU-I/2014. In addition, KPPU only uses indirect evidence to prove the violation of Law Number 5 of 1999. The Supreme Court through the Court Decision Number 294 K/PDT.SUS/2012 rejects the using of indirect evidence while through the Court Decision Number 221K/PDT.SUS-KPPU/2016 the Supreme Court accepts the indirect evidence. However, in the legal considerations the judges do not contain the legal basis on the receipt of indirect evidence as evidence in Law Number 5 of 1999. Besides, the consideration of the Supreme Court does not contain the principle of evidentiary process which requires at least two valid evidences to prove the violation of Law Number 5 of 1999.Keywords: cartel, relevant market, indirect evidence.

scholarly journals INDEPENDENSI SISTEM PERADILAN MILITER DI INDONESIA (Studi Tentang Struktur Peradilan Militer) / THE INDEPENDENCY OF MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM IN THE INDONESIAN (The Study of The Structure of The Judiciary)

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 105
Author(s):  
Slamet Sarwo Edy
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Justice System ◽  
The Body ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
District Court ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Military Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Military

Peradilan militer adalah badan yang melaksanakan kekuasaan kehakiman di lingkungan TNI untuk menegakan hukum dan keadilan. Pengadilan militer tidak berpuncak dan tidak diawasi oleh markas besar TNI, tetapi berpuncak dan diawasi oleh MA RI. Filosofi terjadinya ketidakmandirian dalam sistem peradilan militer pertama, karena faktor kepentingan militer (TNI) yaitu berkaitan dengan tugas pokok TNI mempertahankan kedaulatan negara, oleh karena itu dengan menempatkan peran komandan satuan (Ankum) maupun lembaga kepaperaan didalam sistem penegakan hukum tersebut. Kedua, pada awal pembentukan organisasi peradilan militer menempatkan aparat peradilan sipil sebagai penjabat pada pengadilan militer. Ketua pengadilan negeri yang ditunjuk sebagai tempat kedudukan pengadilan tentara karena jabatannya menjadi ketua pengadilan tentara. Panitera pengadilan negeri juga menjabat sebagai panitera pengadilan tentara, kepala kejaksaan negeri ditetapkan sebagai jaksa tentara. Keadaan demikian menimbulkan keberatan-keberatan dengan alasan dipandang akan tidak menguntungkan bagi militer ataupun kesatuan militer. Peradilan militer ke depan harus mandiri baik secara kelembagaan maupun secara fungsional. Dalam konteks itu maka penyidik adalah polisi militer yang terdiri AD, AL dan AU, bertanggung jawab kepada Danpuspom TNI. Penuntutan dan pelimpahan perkara ke pengadilan dilaksanakan oleh oditur militer yang bertanggung jawab kepada Orjen TNI. Kewenangan pengadilan tidak lagi didasarkan kepada kepangkatan terdakwa. Pembinaan organisasi, administrasi, dan finansial pengadilan militer sepenuhnya berada dibawah MARI sebagaimana diatur dalam undang-undang.Military Court is the body that conduct the judicial power in the Indonesian Military Force (TNI) scope to enforce law and justice. The Military Court does not culminate and not supervised by the Indonesian Military Force headquarters, but culminates and is supervised by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia. The Philosophy of  the occurrence of dependence in the first military justice system, because of the interest of the military (TNI) which is associated with its principal task of TNI is to defend the national sovereignty, for that reason, by putting the role of commander of the unit (Ankum) as well as kepaperaan within the law enforcement system. The Head of the district court also covers Military Court in his jurisdiction because of it the Head of district court becomes the Head of Military Court. The Registrar is automatically also the Registrar of Military Court, Head of State Prosecutors assigned as military prosecutor. These circumstances affect objections which are seen as unfavorable for military or military units. The authority of the Court is no longer based on the rank of the defendant, the hierarchy of court proceedings such as judges, military Prosecutors, defense attorneys, no longer use the rank but wearing a toga. Development of organizational, administrative, financial of Military Courts is fully under the Supreme Court held consequently as stipulated in the law of judicial power.  The execution of criminal act by military prison, executed equally as prisoner without discriminating the person by his rank. 

scholarly journals Analisis Yuridis terhadap Kasus Gugatan Perbuatan Melawan Hukum atas Ketidakabsahan Peralihan Hak Milik Benda Bergerak (Studi Kasus Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1081/K/PDT/2018)

Kosmik Hukum ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 21
Author(s):  
Fathalya Laksana
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Analytical Research ◽  
The Law

The legal requirements are regulated in Article 1320 of the Civil Code (KUHPerdata). If the valid conditions of the promise are not fulfilled, then the law that results is that the agreement can be canceled or null and void. In the Court's practice contained in the Supreme Decision Number 1081K / PDT / 2018, there was a sale and purchase agreement between the Plaintiff's husband and the Defendant, the sale and purchase agreement was made by the Plaintiff's partner without the consent of the Plaintiff as his legal wife. Supreme Court Decision No. 1081K / PDT / 2018 stated that the sale and purchase agreement was invalid and null and void. Apart from that, in its decision, the Defendant's UN Supreme Court had committed an illegal act. The research method used is a normative juridical approach using secondary data obtained from literature studies, namely statutory regulations, legal theories, and the opinions of leading legal scholars. This research uses descriptive analytical research specifications that describe the regulations that are in accordance with legal theories that oversee the implementation practices of the problems under study. The data analysis method used is qualitative normative method. Based on the research results, it can be denied that the sale and purchase agreement in the Supreme Court Decision Number 1081K / PDT / 2018 is not legally valid. The agreement does not fulfill the validity requirements of the agreement in Article 1320 of the Civil Code, namely halal skills and causes because it violates Article 36 paragraph (2) of the Marriage Law No. 1 of 1974 resulting in the sale and purchase agreement to be null and void.Keywords: Buying and Selling, Acts against the Law, Agreement, Marriage, Collective Property

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document