Pembatalan Putusan Pailit yang Didahului Permohonan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang Akibat Pengajuan Upaya Peninjauan Kembali (Studi Putusan MA No. 96 PK/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2014)

Abstract

The bankruptcy decree that is preceded by the application of PKPU (Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations) cannot be remedied by any legal attempts. The provisions governing this are contained in Article 235, Article 290, and Article 293 of the UUK-PKPU (Law of Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations). It is also regulated in SEMA (Supreme Court Circular Letter) Number 4 of 2014 on the implementation of the plenary meeting results of the Supreme Court Chamber in 2013 as a Guide for the Task Implementation of the Court. The Supreme Court decree Number 96 PK/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2014 examined in this research indicates that the Supreme Court granted the submission of judicial review and dismiss the Decree No. 09/PKPU/2013/PN Niaga Sby. The problems of this thesis are namely: How about the legal certainty of the dismissal of the bankruptcy decree that is preceded by PKPU application as a result of filing of judicial review attempt; How about legal consequences of dismissal of the bankruptcy decree that is preceded by PKPU application as a result of filing of judicial review attempt; How about the judge’s legal consideration toward the dismissal of the bankruptcy decree that is preceded by PKPU application as a result of filing of judicial review attempt according to the Supreme Court Decree No. 96 PK/Pdt.Sus- Pailit/2014. This thesis employs normative juridicial research method, which refers to the legal norms and the data obtained by researching library materials in order to obtain secondary data in the form of primary, secondary, tertiary legal materials. This is prescriptive research which is conducted using library research and interview guidelines as data collection techniques to complement the secondary data. The judge was interviewed at Medan District Court. The results indicate that the dismissal of the bankruptcy decree that was preceded by PKPU application causes legal uncertainty because it contradicts the UUK-PKPU and SEMA Number 4 of 2014. The Supreme Court decree causes legal consequences, namely the case settlement takes longer time since it is not certain when the case ends, the accumulation of cases in the Supreme Court, and the cost of proceeding is more expensive. The Supreme Court Judge’s legal consideration set aside Article 290 of UUK-PKPU because the Commercial Court has wrongly applied the law by excluding the names of the CV’s owner and administrator in the application letter, PKPU and Bankruptcy decree, resulting in formal defect and is dismissed.