Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

JURIDICAL REVIEW OF DEFECTS MADE BY PT. PERHUTANI (PERSERO) IN THE PURCHASE OF THE BUILDING OWNED BY PT. VISI INVESTAMA PROPERTI (CASE STUDY OF SOUTH JAKARTA DISTRICT COURT DECISION NUMBER 735/PDT.GL202LLPN.JKT.SEL. JO JAKARTA HIGH COURT DECISION NUMBER26 Pratama, Febrian; Napitupulu, Diana Ria W; Nadapdap, Binoto
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL, POLICY AND LAW Vol. 5 No. 3 (2024): October 2024
Publisher : INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL, POLICY AND LAW

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.8888/ijospl.v5i3.172

Abstract

Basically, an agreement will go well if the parties to the agreement are based on good faith, but if one party does not have good faith or does not carry out their obligations, a breach of contract will arise. A breach of contract is a condition where the debtor does not fulfill his/her performance obligations in the agreement or does not fulfill them as they should or as they should In carrying out its business activities, a Limited Liability Company cannot be separated from agreement matters, one of which is PT. Visi Investama Properti, that PT. Visi Investama Properti as the owner of the Zuria Tower Building has an agreement to sell the Building to PT. Perhutani (Persero) then the agreement is stated in a deed of agreement. The main issue of the case is regarding the breach of promise (breach of contract) committed by PT. Perhutani (Persero) in carrying out the fulfillment of legal obligations in connection with the payment of the purchase of the Zuria Tower Building which has not been paid as stated in the Decision of the South Jakarta District Court Decision Number 735/PDT.GL202LLPN.JKT.SEL. Jo Jakarta High Court Decision Number 266/PDT/2023/PT DKI Jo. Supreme Court Cassation Decision Number 1755 K/PDT/2024. The method used in this study is normative research conducted as an effort to obtain the necessary data in connection with the problem. The data used is secondary data consisting of primary legal materials, secondary legal materials and tertiary legal materials. In addition, primary data is also used as supporting secondary data legal materials. For data analysis, it is carried out using qualitative legal analysis methods. From the research results, it can be obtained results based on the consideration of the panel of judges PT Perhutani (Persero) Proven to have been negligent (breach of contract) to PT. Visi Investama Properti as stipulated in Article 3 of the deed of agreement No. 88 dated December 26, 2019 That the Legal Consequences for the Parties in the Court's Decision PT Perhutani (Persero) is obliged to pay the remaining fine for late payment of the purchase of the Zuria Tower Building amounting to Rp. 8,232,300,000, - (eight billion two hundred thirty-two million three hundred thousand rupiah)
Konflik Kepentingan antara Kreditor Separatis dan Konsumen dalam Kepailitan Debitor Pengembang Properti Setiadi, Imam; Harjono, Dhaniswara K; Napitupulu, Diana Ria W
JURNAL HUKUM PELITA Vol. 6 No. 1 (2025): Jurnal Hukum Pelita Mei 2025
Publisher : Direktorat Penelitian dan Pengabdian (DPPM) Universitas Pelita Bangsa

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37366/jhp.v6i1.5835

Abstract

This research examines the legal position of creditors holding Security Rights (Hak Tanggungan) in the sale and purchase of land and buildings that constitute the object of the Security Rights by a bankrupt debtor to consumers. Normatively, creditors holding Security Rights possess the status of separatist creditors as stipulated in Article 55 paragraph (1) of Law Number 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (UUK-PKPU), as well as Law Number 4 of 1996 on Security Rights over Land and Objects Related to Land (UUHT). However, in practice, the enforcement rights of these creditors often conflict with court decisions aimed at providing legal protection to consumers—particularly apartment unit buyers—who have acquired the property in good faith. This study employs a normative juridical method, using the statute approach and conceptual approach to examine the applicable legal norms and relevant legal principles. The findings lead to two primary conclusions. First, a bankruptcy decision against a property developer as debtor creates legal uncertainty for creditors holding Security Rights, especially when the collateral has already been sold to consumers. Conflicts arise between the creditor's priority rights and the consumer's protection as a good-faith purchaser. Current regulations, such as the Bankruptcy Law and the Security Rights Law, have yet to provide a clear resolution, thereby causing legal ambiguity. Second, the Bankruptcy Law is designed to protect creditors when a debtor fails to fulfill debt obligations, granting them access to the debtor’s estate. Creditors holding Security Rights (separatist creditors) should continue to receive maximum legal protection in accordance with the lex specialis principle under the Security Rights Law, which grants authority for parate execution, despite the time limitations imposed under the Bankruptcy Law