scholarly journals PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM BAGI KREDITUR PEMEGANG HAK TANGGUNGAN TERHADAP SENGKETA AGUNAN YANG MENGAKIBATKAN BATALNYA PERJANJIAN KREDIT

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 26
Author(s):  
Fransisca Kusuma Aryani ◽  
Gunawan Djajaputra
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
District Court ◽  
Good People ◽  
Warning Letter ◽  
The Law ◽  
Debt Repayment ◽  
Credit Agreement

The process of granting credit with the guarantee of Mortgage Rights experienced many obstacles, one of which is the cancellation of credit agreement due to a lawsuit from a third party. Examples of problems that will researchers take is a case between PT PNM as creditor and Erlinawati as a debtor. Erlinawati applied for credit to PT PNM and pledged SHM No. 1716 without her husband's agreement, Bagus Satriya. As time went by, Erlinawati could not fulfill its obligations as stipulated in the credit agreement, and then PT PNM sent a warning letter to Erlinawati. Good people who know the land and buildings of his property are used as a direct guarantee to file a lawsuit to the Blora District Court. The Blora District Court ruled that credit agreements and Deed of Mortgage Rights (APHT) are invalid and null and void. So far the legal protection for debtors who have sued from the other party on the guarantee given by the creditor has not been regulated specially in the legislation. The law only regulates bad debts and debt repayment through the execution process stipulated in the Law on Banking and Insurance Rights Act. Legal protection that creditor can use when obtaining a lawsuit from a third party is by using the general guarantees provided for in Articles 1131 and 1132 of the Civil Code.

KEPEMILIKAN DAN PENGUASAAN OBJEK JAMINAN FIDUSIA APABILA TERJADI SENGKETA WANPRESTASI DALAM PERJANJIAN KREDIT

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 78
Author(s):  
Dija Hedistira ◽  
' Pujiyono
Keyword(s):  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

<p>Abstract<br />This article aims to analyze the ownership and mastery of a fiduciary collateral object, in cases that often occur today, many disputes between creditors and debtors in fiduciary collateral agreements are caused because creditors assume that with executive rights as fiduciary recipients, the fiduciary collateral object legally owned by creditors and creditors the right to take and sell fiduciary collateral objects when the debtor defaults unilaterally, as well as the debtor who considers that the fiduciary collateral object is owned by him because the object is registered on his name, so that the debtor can use the object free as  giving to a third party or selling the object of fiduciary guarantee unilaterally. the author uses a normative <br />juridical approach, and deductive analysis method based on the Civil Code and fiduciary law applicable in Indonesia, Law No. 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees. The conclusion of the discussion is the ownership of the object of the Fiduciary Guarantee is owned by the debtor in accordance with the Law, mastery of the object of collateral controlled by the debtor for economic benefits, the procedure of execution The object of Fiduciary Guarantee is carried out in accordance with the Fiduciary Guarantee Act, an alternative mediation in resolving the dispute. There needs to be clarity in the use of language in making a law, so as not to conflict with each other between Article one and the other Articles.<br />Keywords: Ownership; Mastery; Object of Fiduciary Guarantee; Debtor; Creditors.</p><p>Abstrak<br />Artikel ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis tentang kepemilikan dan penguasaan suatu objek jaminan fidusia, dalam kasus yang saat ini sering terjadi, banyak sengketa antara kreditur dan debitur dalam perjanjian jaminan fidusia disebabkan karena kreditur beranggapan bahwa dengan adanya hak eksekutorial sebagai penerima fidusia, maka objek jaminan fidusia tersebut secara sah dimiliki oleh kreditur dan kreditur berhak mengambil dan menjual objek jaminan fidusia saat debitur cidera janji<br />(wanprestasi) secara sepihak, begitupun dengan debitur yang menganggap bahwa objek jaminan fidusia tersebut dimiliki olehnya karena objek tersebut terdaftar atas namannya, sehingga debitur dapat mempergunakan objek tersebut secara bebas seperti menyerahkan kepada pihak ketiga atau menjual objek jaminan fidusia tersebut secara sepihak. penulis menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif, dan metode analisis deduktif yang didasarkan pada Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata<br />dan hukum jaminan fidusia yang berlaku di Indonesia, Undang-Undang No. 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia. Kesimpulan pembahasan adalah Kepemilikan Objek Jaminan Fidusia dimiliki oleh debitur sesuai Undang-undang, penguasaan objek jaminan dikuasai debitur untuk manfaat ekonomis, prosedur eksekusi Objek Jaminan Fidusia dilakukan sesuai dengan Undang-Undang Jaminan Fidusia, alternatif secara mediasi dalam menyelesaikan sengketa yang terjadi. Perlu ada kejelasan dalam<br />penggunaan bahasa pada pembuatan suatu Undang-Undang, agar tidak saling bertentangan antar Pasal satu dengan Pasal yang lainnya. <br />Kata Kunci: Kepemilikan; Penguasaan; Objek Jaminan Fidusia; Debitur; Kreditur.</p>

scholarly journals ACTIO PAULIANA SEBAGAI UPAYA PERLINDUNGAN BAGI KREDITOR MENURUT KITAB UNDANG-UNDANG HUKUM PERDATA DAN UNDANG-UNDANG KEPAILITAN DAN PENUNDAAN KEWAJIBAN PEMBAYARAN UTANG (PKPU)

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 21
Author(s):  
Rai Mantili
Keyword(s):  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Party ◽  
District Court ◽  
Legal Action ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Debt Repayment ◽  
The Right

Actio Pauliana is the right given to a creditor to cancel the debtor’s agreement with a third party. The purpose of this actio pauliana is to avoid losses from its creditors, by requesting the court to cancel the debtor’s legal action which is deemed to be detrimental to his creditors. Actio Pauliana provisions apart from being regulated in the Civil Code, are also regulated in Law No. 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Repayment Obligation (UUKPKPU). However, the two rules have several diff erences. In this paper, the author wants to explain about Actio Pauliana which is regulated in the Civil Code and Actio Pauliana which is regulated in UUKPKPU in order to provide protection for creditors. This writing gives the result that Actio Pauliana’s lawsuit which is regulated in the Civil Code is submitted to the District Court and cannot be justifi ed and can take a long time. Unlike the case with Actio Pauliana which is regulated in the UUPKPU, the fi ling of a lawsuit is made to the Commercial Court and can be proven simply so that it can provide more protection for creditors.

scholarly journals Kewenangan Kepolisian Memanggil Notaris Untuk Mendapatkan Keterangan Dan Klarifikasi Terhadap Perkara Tindak Pidana

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 89-99
Author(s):  
Agus Kurniawan
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
The Other ◽  
Police Investigation ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Research Problems ◽  
The Law ◽  
Notary Public ◽  
The Right ◽  
Investigation Process

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji dan perlindungan hukum hak-hak tenaga kerja yang perusahaannya diputus Pailit. Permasalahan penelitian, Pertama, Bagaimanakah Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Hak-Hak Pegawai Dalam Kepailitan Perusahaan; Kedua, Bagaimanakah Upaya Hukum Yang Dapat Dilakukan Pekerja Jika Tidak Memperoleh Hak Sebagai Kreditor Istimewa/Preference. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan yang bersifat kualitatif. Hasil penelitian bahwa Perlindungan hukum terhadap hak-hak karyawan dalam kepailitan perseroan adalah melindungi hak-hak dan kepentingan dari para karyawan selaku stakeholders perusahaan. Kewenangan pengadilan niaga dalam tuntutan karyawan atas upah atau uang pesangon yang tidak dibayar oleh perseroan dalam memindahkan kewenangan mutlak (absolut) dari pengadilan umum untuk memeriksa permohonan pailit. upah pekerja dalam pemenuhan adalah utang harta pailit, sebelum didistribusikan kepada kreditor biaya kepailitan harus dibayar didahulukan, termasuk kreditor separatis. This study aims to analyze the authority of the police investigation and investigation process of notaries. Research problems, First. what is the authority of the police in the process of investigating and investigating notaries. Second, how does the legal protection of notaries in the process of investigation and investigation ?. The results showed that the authority of the Police in the process of investigating and investigating Notaries after the issuance of the Law of Notary Position Number 2 of 2014 was that between the Police and Notary Public must understand about their respective authorities that have been regulated by the Law, namely if the Notary Public has a problem with the deed he made then the Police / Investigator can call the Notary public directly as a witness / suspect but on the other hand the Notary in assuming his position has the right to deny the confidentiality of his act in accordance with Article 4 Jo Article 16 Jo Article 54 Jo Law No. 2 of 2014, then based on Article 170 paragraph 1 KUHAP and Article 1909 paragraph 2 number 3e of the Civil Code in this case the Police must also understand the principle of legal presumption (Vermoedanvan Rechtmatigheid) or Presumptio lustae Causa

scholarly journals Investigating Sanction of the Conditions in the Settlement Contract with Regard to Registration of Deeds and Real Estate

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Afsaneh Narimisa ◽  
Alireza Entezari
Keyword(s):  
Real Estate ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Legal Problem ◽  
The Third ◽  
General Rules ◽  
Settlement Agreement ◽  
The Law

Considering that Articles 47 and 48 of the Registration Law have stated that registration of the document of settlement contract is obligatory and its sanction is the non-acceptability of unofficial documents in courts and departments. However, it must be said that these articles do not declare the invalidity of normal documents absolutely, but the meaning of the non-acceptability of such documents is that they cannot be referred to in relation to third parties, while such documents are valid and authentic for the parties to the contract, and because of the fact that the document is a normal contract, the parties to the contract cannot refuse to fulfill their commitment and execute the contract by the excuse that such documents must have been registered in accordance with the law. Therefore, referring to ordinary settlement agreement, the grantee cannot claim the propriety of some property against persons other than grantor, but in the case of denial of the occurrence of a transaction between the parties to the settlement, the beneficiary can refer to the ordinary document of that transaction to prove the occurrence of the transaction between themself and the other person, and such a reference is reviewable by the court. In addition to that the grantor and grantee can refer to ordinary document and any provable evidence in their controversy and dispute about the settlement subject and prove the occurrence of settlement, the grantee can bring an action against the grantor and obligate them to arrange an official settlement document by proving the settlement and by invoking to Article 220 of the Civil Code, because according to the mentioned article, transactors are not only committed to what is stated in the contract, but are also committed to all the results of the contract in accordance with customs or law. However, if a dispute occurs between the grantee and a third party about the settlement subject and an action is brought, then if the grantee presents the ordinary settlement document to prove their ownership, the court according to the Registration Law will not consider that document effective, and the grantee may even be convicted against the third party. The settlement is not correct if its provisions arecontrary to the law, order and the general rules, and if the settlement document arranged in a notary office has a substantive, procedural or legal problem then the competent legal authorities such as the High Council of Registry investigate the issue and the provisions applicable will be issued.

scholarly journals AKIBAT HUKUM AKTA PERJANJIAN KREDIT YANG DIBUAT NOTARIS DENGAN JAMINAN HAK TANGGUNGAN ADANYA KEPASTIAN HUKUM DAN KEADILAN PARA PIHAK

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 200
Author(s):  
Oting Supartini ◽  
Anis Mashdurohatun
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Code Of Ethics ◽  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Empirical Method ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
District Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Credit Agreement ◽  
Legal Consequences

The purpose of this study is the legal consequences arising out of the Credit Agreement with the guarantee of mortgage studies in case number 127 / Pdt.G / 2014 / PN.SMG, in the District Court of New York, How should a notary to make loan agreement with the Mortgage Guarantee ensure legal certainty.In this study, using juridical empirical method. Type and source of the data used in the primary and secondary data. Collecting data with the study of literature and the (observation, interviews and questionnaires). Analysis of data for qualitative descriptive. As a result of the law on the ratification of the creditors of the credit agreement by notary, with a guarantee of mortgage, based on the wording of Article 6 of Law No. I R 4 Year 1996 on Land  and Other Bodies related to the land, the right to sell the object of mortgage on its own power is one embodiment of the priority positions (referent). And as a result of the law of the debtor apply Article 1338 of the Civil Code, Article 1243 applies, Article 1244KUHPerdata, and Article 1237, paragraph (2) of the Civil Code. The legal consequences of Notaries that have fulfilled the provisions of Article 1320 of the Civil Code in accordance with the obligations of and is not in violation of Article 16 on the obligation of, and in compliance with the Article 38, 39, 40 andArticle 44 paragraph (1), (2), (3) and paragraph (4), Law of Republic of Indonesia No. 30 2004 Jo No. 2 Year 2014 concerning Notary and do not violate the code of ethics of the notary, so that the act is still not degraded to act under the hand. Of a credit agreement with a guarantee of mortgage that guarantees the rule of law and justice of the parties, the fulfillment of Article 1320, Article 1321 of the Civil Code, and Notary must comply with Article 15 and Article 16 ofthe Law Notary, implement the Code of conduct and other Law.

Formation of Contract and Third Parties in Cambodia

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ly Tayseng
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Contract Formation ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Formal Requirements

This chapter gives an overview of the law on contract formation and third party beneficiaries in Cambodia. Much of the discussion is tentative since the new Cambodian Civil Code only entered into force from 21 December 2011 and there is little case law and academic writing fleshing out its provisions. The Code owes much to the Japanese Civil Code of 1898 and, like the latter, does not have a requirement of consideration and seldom imposes formal requirements but there are a few statutory exceptions from the principle of freedom from form. For a binding contract, the agreement of the parties is required and the offer must be made with the intention to create a legally binding obligation and becomes effective once it reaches the offeree. The new Code explicitly provides that the parties to the contract may agree to confer a right arising under the contract upon a third party. This right accrues directly from their agreement; it is not required that the third party declare its intention to accept the right.

Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties in Japan

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masami Okino
Keyword(s):  
Case Analysis ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
German Model ◽  
Recent Debate ◽  
The Law

This chapter discusses the law on third party beneficiaries in Japan; mostly characterized by adherence to the German model that still bears an imprint on Japanese contract law. Thus, there is neither a doctrine of consideration nor any other justification for a general doctrine of privity, and contracts for the benefit of third parties are generally enforceable as a matter of course. Whether an enforceable right on the part of a third party is created is simply a matter of interpretation of the contract which is always made on a case-by-case analysis but there are a number of typical scenarios where the courts normally find the existence (or non-existence) of a contract for the benefit of a third party. In the recent debate on reform of Japanese contract law, wide-ranging suggestions were made for revision of the provisions on contracts for the benefit of third parties in the Japanese Civil Code. However, it turned out that reform in this area was confined to a very limited codification of established case law.

scholarly journals SITA JAMINAN DALAM KEPAILITAN

Yuridika ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sriti Hesti Astiti
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
The Other ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Bankruptcy Law ◽  
Legal Enforcement ◽  
The Law ◽  
Erroneous Interpretation

The law of bankruptcy basically has to pay more attention and give a proportionate legal protection between the interests of debtors to creditors, even also the interests of other credi-tors, who do not have a file in the bankruptcy process. Unfortunately, the legal protection for the other creditors which is regulated in Article 10 Law No. 37/2004 contains many weak-nesses and give many erroneous interpretation in the field of its structure, culture and the substance. Therefore, the legal enforcement and the conservatoir measures in bankruptcy law which has been intended to protect the legal interests of what we called “the other credi-tors” in the commercial court decision becomes unpredictable.Keyword : bankruptcy, other creditors, debtors.

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 PROFIT AND LOSS SHARING IN THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT UNDER THE NEW ROMANIAN CIVIL CODE

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amelia Veronica Singh
Keyword(s):  
Ab Initio ◽  
Profit Sharing ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
The Other ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Law ◽  
Partnership Agreement ◽  
The One ◽  
Profit Share

The new Romanian Civil Code regulations have reconfirmed the rule ofproportionality when speaking about profit and loss in a partnership agreement. Basically,the law does not require that the participation of partners in profit and loss be necessarilyproportional to their contribution to the society’s capital and the associates can evendetermine their share of benefits and losses. In case the associates establish by contract onlytheir share of benefits, then their contribution to losses will become proportional to theirprofit share. If the share of profit is not proportionally equal with the contribution, then thecontribution to debts will be proportional with the profit share and not with the contributionbrought to the capital.One must keep in mind as compulsory the condition that each partner shouldparticipate both in profit and loss sharing. On the one hand, a partner cannot reserve all thebenefit for himself only, while on the other hand the partners cannot decide that one orseveral of them are exempted from participating in loss sharing. Also, they cannot set aprovision by which a partner is excluded wither from profit sharing or from participation inloss, as this provision would be void ab initio.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document