The Legal Protection of Creditors Who Do Not Respond to Payment Offers in Bankruptcy Settlement

Anindya Putri Primaditha

Abstract


This study aims to find out and explain legal protection for creditors who have never responded to offers of cash payments in bankruptcy settlements, and settlement of accounts payable against these creditors based on case studies of Central Jakarta District Court Decision Number 364/Pdt.P/2020/PN. Jkt. Pst. The approach method uses normative juridical methods. The research specifications are analytical descriptive. The type of data is secondary legal data, consisting of primary legal materials, namely the 1945 Constitution, statutory regulations and court decisions; secondary legal materials such as books and journals, as well as tertiary legal materials. Data collection method is done by literature study or document study. Methods of data analysis using qualitative data analysis method. The results of the study show that legal protection for creditors who do not respond to offers of cash payments must be pursued through curators, namely submitting offers of cash payments on deposit/consignment, and requesting approval from the court if the creditors still do not respond; court institutions, through judges, clerks and bailiffs according to their duties and authorities; and the existence of written regulations as a basis in efforts to protect the law against these creditors. If the creditor does not respond, then Article 1404 jo. 1381 of the Civil Code, and the cash payment offer was ratified by the District Court.

Keywords: Bankruptcy; Consignment; Payment Offer; Protection.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Journals:

Kurniawan, Moh. (2018). Tugas Dan Fungsi Balai Harta Peninggalan Semarang Sebagai Kurator Kepailitan Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kepailitan Dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang. Jurnal Daulat Hukum, Volume 1 No. 1.

Magribi, Imam, Dewi Tuti Muryati dan Supriyadi. (2017). Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Kreditor Dalam Kaitannya Dengan Permohonan Pailit Yang Diajukan Oleh Debitor Studi Kasus Pada PT. Bank CIMB Niaga Melawan PT. Sumatera Persada Energi. Jurnal Humani, Volume 7 No. 2.

Makmur, Syafrudin. (2016). Kepastian Hukum Kepailitan Bagi Kreditur dan Debitur Pada Pengadilan Niaga Indonesia. Mizan: Jurnal Ilmu Syariah. Volume 4 No. 2.

Pratiwi, Agustina Ni Made Ayu Darma dan Putu Sekarwangi Saraswati. (2021). Tinjauan Yuridis Undang-Undang Nomor 34 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kepailitan dan PKPU Mengenai PKPU Dalam Hal Debitur Pailit Dimasa Covid 19. Media Keadilan: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Vol. 12 Nomor 1.

Books:

Hadjon. Philipus M. (2011). Pengantar Hukum Administrasi Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Gajah Mada University Press.

Hartini, Rahayu. (2007). Edisi Revisi Hukum Kepailitan. Malang: UMM Press.

Satrio. J. (1996). Hukum Perikatan Tentang Hapusnya Perikatan, Bagian I. Bandung: PT. Citra Aditya Bakti.

Shubhan, M. Handi. (2008). Hukum Kepailitan: Prinsip, Norma dan Praktik di Pengadilan. Jakarta: Kencana Prenadamedia Group.

Subekti, R dan R. Tjitrosudibio (2006). Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata: Burgelijk Wetboek. Jakarta : Pradnya Paramita.

Suyanto (2020). Hapusnya Hak Atas Tanah Akibat Penitipan Ganti Kerugian Dalam Pengadaan Tanah Untuk Kepentingan Umum. Surabaya: CV. Jakad Publishing Surabaya.

Tehupeiory, Aartje. (2017). Makna Konsinyasi Pengadaan Tanah Untuk Kepentingan Umum,. Jakarta: Raih Asa Sukses.

Togatorop, Marulak (2020). Perlindungan Hak atas Tanah Masyarakat Hukum Adat dalam Pengadaan Tanah untuk Kepentingan Umum. Yogyakarta: STPN Press.

Widjanarko. (1999). Dampak Implementasi Undang-Undang Kepailitan Terhadap Sektor Perbankan. Jurnal Hukum Bisnis, Volume 8.

Yuhelson. (2019). Hukum Kepailitan di Indonesia. Gorontalo: Ideas Publishing.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.