scholarly journals Sistem Utang Piutang Pupuk Dibayar Gabah di Jember Perspektif Fiqih Muamalah dan Hukum Positif

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 285-292
Author(s):  
Siti Muhlisah
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Accounts Receivable ◽  
Positive Law ◽  
Accounts Payable ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Principle Of Justice ◽  
Descriptive Qualitative

Discussing about debt and credit is not foreign to everyone's ears. Accounts receivable is an agreement between one party and another with the agreed object and will be returned within a certain time as agreed. Debt and credit is a form of muamalah which is ta'awun (please help). The fact is that many debts and receivables are not following sharia and law in Indonesia. This study aims to determine and analyze how the practice of fertilizer receivables is paid with grain from the perspective of Fiqh Muamalah and Positive Law. The research method used is descriptive qualitative. The results of this study found that according to Fiqih Muamalah, the fertilizer receivable payable system is paid with grain that the transaction is allowed, but every addition in fertilizer receivables is paid with grain required by the creditor is usury. The practice of the fertilizer debt system being paid with grain also contradicts the principles of the contract, one of which is the divine principle, the principle of justice, and the principle of writing. In the Positive Law, the fertilizer accounts payable system is paid with the grain if it refers to the Supreme Court decision dated December 4, 1975, No. 804 K / Sip / 1973 principal debt plus 6% interest, because 6% interest is the usual interest at the time the agreement was held. And must be stipulated in writing. Meanwhile, the interest in the debt and credit is more than 70%.     

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

Analisis Pemberian Wasiat Wajibah terhadap Ahli Waris Beda Agama Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 331 K/Ag/2018

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 172
Author(s):  
Alip Pamungkas Raharjo ◽  
Elok Fauzia Dwi Putri
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Republic ◽  
A Share

In Article 171 letter (c) Instruction of the President of the Republic of Indonesia Number 1 of 1991 concerning Compilation of Islamic Law affirms that the rights of non muslim heirs to the inheritance of Islamic heirs do not obtain inheritance from the inheritor's inheritance. However, in its development because it felt unfair, the Supreme Court through The Supreme Court Decision Number 368.K / AG / 1995 provided a way for joint cooperation of different inheritance through a wasiat wajibah. But in its development, this provision was changed again by a landmark decision from the Supreme Court, namely through the Decision of the Supreme Court Number 331 K / AG / 2018 because there was a change in the value of justice in the community. The research method used normative research with constitutional approach, conceptual approach and case approach. This study aims to explain the rights of non muslim heirs to the inheritance of Islamic heirs before and after the Decision of the Supreme Court Number 331 K / AG / 2018. The results showed that prior to the Supreme Court Decision Number 331 K / AG / 2018, heirs of non muslim religions were given a share of inheritance in the form of a wasiat wajibah for ¾ of the inheritance inheritance. Post the Decision of the Supreme Court Number 331 K / AG / 2018, the amount of wasiat wajibah will change to ¼ from the inheritor's inheritance. 

scholarly journals KEABSAHAN PEMBUKTIAN AKTA NOTARIS DI PENGADILAN SEBAGAI AKTA OTENTIK (Kajian Putusan No. 3591K/PDT/2018 )

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 53
Author(s):  
Hazar Kusmayanti ◽  
Yuda Anrova
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Documentary Evidence ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
Positive Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Republic

The evidentiary process requires evidence which is regulated under the civil procedure law in Article 164 HIR. Supreme Court decision number 3591K/Pdt/2018, discusses documentary evidence in the form of an agreement to transfer and transfer land rights. Mahakamah Agung’s decision number 3591K/Pdt/2018 states that the deed has no legal force because the land object of the dispute has been issued a legally valid right to build (HGB) certifi cate. The purpose of this paper is to fi nd out the legal considerations of the decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia regarding the validity related to positive law in Indonesia. The research method used is a normative juridical approach with research specifi cations in the form of descriptive analytical through secondary data obtained from literature studies. The data analysis method used is qualitative normative method. The conclusion was obtained that the deed of agreement of transfer and transfer of land rights as outlined in deed number 255 is legally valid because the agreement was made by fulfi lling the validity requirements of the agreement in Article 1320 of the Civil Code, however the judge did not provide further explanation in the judge’s consideration regarding the validity of the letter.

scholarly journals KONSEP PEMBUKTIAN SEDERHANA DALAM PERKARA KEPAILITAN

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 331
Author(s):  
Nelson Kapoyos
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Simple Proof ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Research Problem ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
The Supreme Court

ABSTRAKPenelitian ini mempermasalahkan pembuktian sederhana dalam proses kepailitan terkait kewajiban pemberitahuan adanya peralihan piutang (cessie) kepada debitur. Putusan Nomor 02/PDT.SUS.PAILIT/2014/PN.Niaga.Mks telah mengabulkan permohonan kreditur cessionaries yang dikuatkan oleh Putusan Nomor 19 K/PDT.SUSPAILIT/2015, namun pada upaya hukum peninjauan kembali majelis hakim justru mengabulkan permohonan peninjauan kembali dengan alasan pembuktian sederhana terhadap cessie belum diberitahukan kepada debitur secara resmi melalui juru sita pengadilan. Rumusan masalah penelitian ini ialah bagaimana konsep pembuktian sederhana dalam kepailitan terhadap kewajiban pemberitahuan pengalihan piutang (cessie) pada pertimbangan majelis hakim peninjauan kembali Nomor 125 PK/PDT.SUS-PAILIT/2015. Metode penelitian ini menggunakan penelitian hukum normatif. Kesimpulan penelitian ini adalah konsep pembuktian sederhana di dalam pembuktian kepailitan tidak ada kewajiban pemberitahuan secara resmi melalui juru sita pengadilan karena Pasal 613 BW tidak mengaturnya, pemberitahuan hanya diajukan secara tertulis dan bisa kapanpun diberitahukan kepada debitur. Kata kunci: kepailitan, pembuktian sederhana, cessie.ABSTRACTThis analysis intends to question the simple proof in bankruptcy proceedings related to the transition of receivable notification obligation (cessie) to the debtors. The Commercial Court Decision Number 02/PDT.SUS.PAILIT/2014/PN.Niaga.Mks has granted the petitions of creditor’s cessionary which was strengthened by the Supreme Court Decision Number 19 K/PDT.SUSPAILIT/2015, but on the judicial review attempt, the Supreme Court has granted the petition for the judicial review on the grounds that a simple proof of cessie has not been officially disclosed to the debtor through a court bailiff. The formulation of this research problem is how the concept of simple proof in bankruptcy proceeding to the obligation of notification of transfer of receivables (cessie) in the consideration of Court Decision Number 125 PK/PDT.SUS-PAILIT/2015. The research method of this analysis is normative legal research. This analysis resolves thatin the simple proof concept of the bankruptcy proceedings, there is no obligation of official notice through the court bailiff because it is not set on Article 613 of Indonesia Civil Code Law, so the notification is only submitted in writing and may at any time be notified to the debtor. Keywords: bankruptcy, simple proof, cessie.

Analisis Pemberian Wasiat Wajibah terhadap Ahli Waris Beda Agama Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 331 K/Ag/2018

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 172
Author(s):  
Alip Pamungkas Raharjo ◽  
Elok Fauzia Dwi Putri
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Republic ◽  
A Share

In Article 171 letter (c) Instruction of the President of the Republic of Indonesia Number 1 of 1991 concerning Compilation of Islamic Law affirms that the rights of non muslim heirs to the inheritance of Islamic heirs do not obtain inheritance from the inheritor's inheritance. However, in its development because it felt unfair, the Supreme Court through The Supreme Court Decision Number 368.K / AG / 1995 provided a way for joint cooperation of different inheritance through a wasiat wajibah. But in its development, this provision was changed again by a landmark decision from the Supreme Court, namely through the Decision of the Supreme Court Number 331 K / AG / 2018 because there was a change in the value of justice in the community. The research method used normative research with constitutional approach, conceptual approach and case approach. This study aims to explain the rights of non muslim heirs to the inheritance of Islamic heirs before and after the Decision of the Supreme Court Number 331 K / AG / 2018. The results showed that prior to the Supreme Court Decision Number 331 K / AG / 2018, heirs of non muslim religions were given a share of inheritance in the form of a wasiat wajibah for ¾ of the inheritance inheritance. Post the Decision of the Supreme Court Number 331 K / AG / 2018, the amount of wasiat wajibah will change to ¼ from the inheritor's inheritance.Keywords: Non Moslem Heir, Legacy, Moslem Heir, The Supreme Court Decision Number 331 K / AG / 2018

The Supreme Court Decision

2012 ◽  
Vol 42 (13) ◽  
pp. 54
Author(s):  
JOSEPH S. EASTERN
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
The Supreme Court
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document