• Login
    View Item 
    •   USU-IR Home
    • Faculty of Law
    • Undergraduate Theses
    • View Item
    •   USU-IR Home
    • Faculty of Law
    • Undergraduate Theses
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Kepastian Hukum terhadap Penolakan Permohonan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang berdasarkan Alasan Nilai Utang Debitur (Studi Putusan Pengadilan Niaga)

    Legal Certainty Regarding Rejection of the Application for Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations Based on the Reason for the Value of the Debtor's Debt (Study of Commercial Court Decisions)

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    Cover (913.6Kb)
    Fulltext (1.770Mb)
    Date
    2025
    Author
    Kharissya, Salma
    Advisor(s)
    Siregar, Mahmul
    Windha, Windha
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    The application for Postponement of Debt Payment Obligation (PKPU) must normatively fulfill the formal and material requirements as stipulated in Article 222, jo. Article 8, paragraph (4), of the Bankruptcy and PKPU Law. However, in practice, not all applications that meet these requirements are granted, as seen in Decision Number 6/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2024/PN Niaga Mdn and Decision Number 336/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2022/PN Niaga Jkt.Pst which was rejected on the grounds of the insignificant value of the debtor's debt, and Decision Number 90/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2021/PN Niaga Jkt.Pst which was granted. This research aims to examine the position of PKPU, the relevance of the application of PERMA Number 4 of 2019 concerning Simple Lawsuits to PKPU, and the legal certainty of the rejection of PKPU applications based on debt value. The method used is normative legal research supported by interviews. The nature of this research is descriptive using secondary data obtained through literature study and interview collection techniques. The results showed that the different interpretations of judges in rejecting PKPU applications and directing them to the Simple Lawsuit mechanism have the potential to cause legal uncertainty. This is because PKPU and Simple Lawsuit are different legal instruments and cannot replace each other. Juridically-normatively, the Panel of Judges should have accepted the application, even though the Bankruptcy and PKPU Law does not explicitly regulate the minimum debt value limit in filing PKPU. Therefore, to ensure legal certainty for the parties in filing a PKPU application in the future, it is necessary to regulate the insolvency test, then issue a PERMA that replaces SK MA RI No.109/KMA/SK/IV/2020 to realize uniformity in handling PKPU cases, as well as the need for education and training by the Supreme Court to commercial judges and civil judges to distinguish PKPU from Simple Lawsuits.
    URI
    https://repositori.usu.ac.id/handle/123456789/105151
    Collections
    • Undergraduate Theses [3144]

    Repositori Institusi Universitas Sumatera Utara - 2025

    Universitas Sumatera Utara

    Perpustakaan

    Resource Guide

    Katalog Perpustakaan

    Journal Elektronik Berlangganan

    Buku Elektronik Berlangganan

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Theme by 
    Atmire NV
     

     

    Browse

    All of USU-IRCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateTitlesAuthorsAdvisorsKeywordsTypesBy Submit DateThis CollectionBy Issue DateTitlesAuthorsAdvisorsKeywordsTypesBy Submit Date

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Repositori Institusi Universitas Sumatera Utara - 2025

    Universitas Sumatera Utara

    Perpustakaan

    Resource Guide

    Katalog Perpustakaan

    Journal Elektronik Berlangganan

    Buku Elektronik Berlangganan

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Theme by 
    Atmire NV