The repository administrator has not yet configured an RDF license.
TINJAUAN YURIDIS PUTUSAN PENUNDAAN KEWAJIBAN PEMBAYARAN UTANG (PKPU) ATAS WANPRESTASI PELAKSANAAN PERJANJIAN JOINT OPERATION
Developments in the business world encourage business actors to collaborate through Joint operation agreements to increase capital, resources, and project implementation efficiency. In practice, the implementation of Joint operation agreements does not always run according to agreement, which can lead to defaults that lead to debt disputes. The resolution of these disputes is often carried out through the Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) mechanism as regulated in Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and PKPU. However, differences in judges' decisions in PKPU cases involving Joint operation raise issues regarding legal certainty, legal protection for the parties, and the position of Joint operation as legal subjects in the PKPU process. This study aims to analyze the judge's legal considerations in Decision Number 161/Pdt.Sus- PKPU/2020/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst and Decision Number 23/Pdt.Sus- PKPU/2021/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst and examine the legal consequences of using the PKPU mechanism in resolving disputes over breach of contract in the Joint operation agreement. This study, the researcher employed a normative legal research method with approaches including the statute approach, the comparative legal approach, and the case approach. The data sources used were secondary data sources consisting of primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, and tertiary legal materials. The data collection technique in this study employed a literature study technique supported by interview data with judges at the Central Jakarta Court. Furthermore, the data analysis used in this study was a qualitative analysis presented descriptively. The results of the study show that the judge's legal considerations in Decision Number 161/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2020/PN Niaga Jkt.Pst have reflected legal protection for creditors by recognizing Joint operations as legal subjects of PKPU through analogy with Firms based on the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 01.K.N/1999 and Article 16 of the Commercial Code. Meanwhile, Decision Number 23/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2021/PN Niaga Jkt.Pst rejected the PKPU application due to overlapping with the ongoing bankruptcy case, which reflects systemic protection for the entire bankruptcy ecosystem based on the principle of prohibition of double claims and the principle of pari passu pro rata parte. The use of the PKPU mechanism in disputes over breach of contract of Joint operation agreements has various legal consequences, namely, changes in the legal standing of the parties, the enactment of an automatic stay stopping the debtor from managing his assets and temporarily stopping all individual creditor lawsuits, as well as blurring the boundaries between contract law and bankruptcy law. The inconsistency of the judges' considerations in the two decisions also reflects a legal vacuum in Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and PKPU regarding the legal status of Joint operations.
FAKULTAS SYARIAH DAN HUKUM, UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA
NIM.: 22103040152 Chika Meilani Putri Kartini
TINJAUAN YURIDIS PUTUSAN PENUNDAAN KEWAJIBAN PEMBAYARAN UTANG (PKPU) ATAS WANPRESTASI PELAKSANAAN PERJANJIAN JOINT OPERATION (Text)
TINJAUAN YURIDIS PUTUSAN PENUNDAAN KEWAJIBAN PEMBAYARAN UTANG (PKPU) ATAS WANPRESTASI PELAKSANAAN PERJANJIAN JOINT OPERATION (Other)
HTML Summary of #77902 TINJAUAN YURIDIS PUTUSAN PENUNDAAN KEWAJIBAN PEMBAYARAN UTANG (PKPU) ATAS WANPRESTASI PELAKSANAAN PERJANJIAN JOINT OPERATION