PENOLAKAN PERMOHONAN PENUNDAAN KEWAJIBAN PEMBAYARAN UTANG OLEH PENGADILAN NIAGA BERDASARKAN PUTUSAN NOMOR: 401/Pdt.SUS-PKPU/2020/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst

Abstract

One of the conditions for the application for Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (SDPO) was the debtor must have more than 1 (one) creditor. The SDPO application was rejected because the debtor was deemed not to have other creditors based on the absence of the power of attorney. The creditor had proven that the debtor had other creditors. Therefore, the requirements for the SDPO
application had been met. This study aimed to determine the legal standing of the parties involved in SDPO application as well as to determine the juridical analysis of the SDPO application which was rejected by the court based on the decision number: 401/Pdt.SUS-PKPU/2020/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst. This research used normative legal research method to determine the coherent truth of a rule of law in
accordance with legal norms and the norms in the form of orders or prohibitions in accordance with legal principles. The data collection method used in this study was by studying the documents on books, laws and regulations, and also court decisions which were used as references in conducting this research. Based on the problems formulated, the legal standing of the parties involved in this SDPO application arose because the two parties had bound themselves in a business agreement in the form of a home landbank fund agreement. The panel of judges rejected the SDPO application, considering that the other creditors did not have a power of attorney, thus the SDPO requirements were not met. The proof of the fulfillment of the SDPO requirements was evidenced by a letter that explained that the debtor and other creditors had entered into an agreement and was also proven by the acknowledgement by the debtor that the debtor has another creditor. Therefore, the panel of judges must be more careful in looking at the evidence trial
to make decisions.