ANALISIS PENOLAKAN PERMOHONAN PERNYATAAN PAILIT TERHADAP PT AKU DIGITAL INDONESIA (AKUMOBIL) (STUDI KASUS: PUTUSAN MA NOMOR 831 K/PDT.SUS-PAILIT/2020)

Main Article Content

Aksses Patrick Boike Pane
Ariawan Ariawan

Abstract

This writing aims to find out whether the Judge's Consideration on Decision No. 831 K / Pdt.SusBankruptcy / 2020 which strengthens theJudge's Decision No. 56 K / Pdt.Sus-Bankruptcy / 2019 / PN. Niaga.Jkt.Pst to reject the bankruptcy statement application against PT Aku Digital Indonesia (Akumobil) has been in accordance with the Law. In this case, the Judge's consideration at the first level and cassation are slightly wrong because the judge states that there is a debt that is not due and there is a criminal element that makes the proof not simple. Whereas in article 2 paragraph 1 of Law No. 37 of 2004 concerning Insolvency and Delay of Debt Payment Obligations mentions that bankruptcy applications can be filed by Debtors who have two or more Creditors and do not pay off at least one debt that has matured and can be billed, which in fact based on the statement in the Vehicle Booking Letter owned by consumers there is debt that is due. The existence of criminal elements does not make the case unassuming because article 8 paragraph 4 of Law No. 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Delay of Debt Payment Obligations stipulates that simple proof can be declared insolvent referring to Article 2 paragraph 1 so that the bankruptcy application against PT Aku Digital Indonesia (Akumobil) can be granted by the Judge. Therefore, the Judge must uphold legal certainty in accordance with Law No. 37 of 2004 concerning Insolvency and Delay of Debt Payment Obligations

Article Details

Section
Articles

References

A. Buku

Fuady, M. Doktrin-Doktrin Modern Dalam Corporate Law dan

Eksistensinya Dalam Hukum Indonesia, Cetakan kedua, Bandung:

PT Citra Aditya Bakti, 2010.

Harahap, M.Y. Hukum Perseroan Terbatas, Cetakan Ketiga, Edisi Ketujuh,

Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2011.

Kansil, C. S. T. Kamus Istilah Aneka Hukum. Jakarta: Jala Permata Aksara,

Marzuki, P. M. Penelitian Hukum Edisi Revisi, Cetakan 14. Jakarta:

Kencana Prenada Media Group, 2019.

Rajagukguk, E. Latar Belakang dan Ruang Lingkup Undang-Undang

Nomor 4 Tahun 1996. Bandung: Lontoh, 2001.

Sastrawidjaja, M. S. Hukum Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban

Pembayaran Utang. Bandung: Alumni: Bandung, 2006.

Shubhan, M. H. Hukum Kepailitan: Prinsip, Norma & Praktik di Peradilan.

Jakarta: Kencana, 2008.

Yani, A. d. Seri Hukum Bisnis Kepailitan. Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo

Persada, 2004.

B. Jurnal

Nola, L. F. Kedudukan Konsumen Dalam Kepailitan. Jurnal Negara

Hukum, Volume 8, Nomor 2 (November 2017): 255.

Prayogo, R. T. Penerapan Asas .Kepastian Hukum Dalam Peraturan

Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1 Tahun 2011 Tentang Hak Uji Materiil

Dan Dalam Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 06/PMK/2005

Tentang Pedoman Beracara Dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang.

Jurnal Legislasi, Volume 13, Nomor 2 (Juni 2016) :192.

Sinaga, N. A.. Hukum Kepailitan Dan Permaslahannya Di Indonesia. Jurnal

Ilmiah Hukum Dirgantara-Fakultas Hukum Universitas Dirgantara

Marsekal Suryadarma, Volume 7, (September 2016) : 159

C. Peraturan Perundang-Undangan

Indonesia, Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kepailitan dan

Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang

Indonesia, Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan

Kehakiman