Simple Verification Principles in Bankruptcy Procedures in Commercial Court of Indonesia

Bambang Eryanto Hermawan, Rachmad Safa’at, Rachmi Sulistyarini, Hero Samudra

Abstract


The purpose of this paper is to explain how the verification of the principles of bankruptcy procedures for an institution and an individual must be carried out in a commercial court in Indonesia. A commercial court is a special court that handles bankruptcy requests for a trade. This paper uses a descriptive method with its main source, namely Law number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations. Law number 37 of 2004 annulls some of the previous bankruptcy regulations, including the regulation which states that district courts no longer have absolute ability to examine or terminate bankruptcy. Another change in Law number 37 of 2004 is that the bankruptcy procedure is handled specifically by the commercial court with a different procedure and verification principle that is simpler when compared to the previous bankruptcy procedure.


Keywords


Bankruptcy Procedures; Commercial Courts; Bankruptcy Verification Principles

Full Text:

PDF

References


Kesowo, B. (2001). Perpu No. 1 Tahun 1998 Latar Belakang dan Arahnya. in Rudy A. Lontoh, et al. Penyelesaian Utang Piutang: Melalui Pailit atau Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang. Ed. 1. Bandung: Alumni.

Kurniawan, F. (2004). Penerapan hak jaminan dalam kepailitan.Tugas khusus hukum kepailitan. Yogyakarta: Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada.

Lontoh, R.A. and Kailimang, D. (2001). Permohonan kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang. in Rudy A. Lontoh, et al. Penyelesaian Utang Piutang: Melalui Pailit atau Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang. Ed. 1. Bandung: Alumni.

Indonesia, M. A. R. (2003). Pedoman Pelaksanaan Tugas dan Administrasi Pengadilan Buku II. Mahkamah Agung RI, Jakarta: MA.

Mertokusumo, S. (2002). Hukum acara perdata Indonesia. Ed. 6, Yogyakarta: Liberty.

Muljadi, K. (2001). Pengertian dan prinsip-prinsip umum hukum kepailitan. in Rudy A. Lontoh, et al. Penyelesaian Utang Piutang: Melalui Pailit atau Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang. Ed. 1. Bandung: Alumni.

Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta Pusat. (2005). Kasus kepailitan, PKPU dan perniagaan lain (dari September 1998 hingga Februari 2005. Jakarta: Bagian kepaniteraan Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta Pusat.

Rajaguguk, E. (1998). Sedikitnya perkara kepailitan di pengadilan. Republika, September, 7.

Simanjutak, R. (2004). Syarat-syarat pengajuan permohonan pailit, makalah dalam latihan intensif (5 hari) tentang Hukum Kepailitan Bagi Hakim, diselenggarakan oleh Pusat Pengkajian Hukum dan Mahkamah Agung RI. Bogor, 23-27 Agustus

Sjahdeini, S.R. (2002). Hukum kepailitan: memahami faillissementsverordening juncto Undang-Undang no.4 tahun 1998. Jakarta: Pustaka Utama Grafiti.

Sjahdeni, S.R. (1998). Jumlah Minimum Hutang dalam Undang-Undang Kepailitan. Suara Pembaharuan, 26.

Wijayanta, T. (2008). Penyelesaian Kes Kebankrapan di Pengadilan Niaga Indonesia dan Mahkamah Tinggi Malaysia: Suatu kajian Perbandingan. Thesis Doktor Falsafah. Bangi: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Wijayanta, T. & Mertokusumo, S. (2003). Relevansi lembaga DISSENTING OPINION dalam penyelesaian sengketa kepailitan di pengadilan niaga. Thesis. Yogyakarta: Universitas Gajah Mada.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v7i5.1700

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2020 International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding (IJMMU) ISSN 2364-5369
https://ijmmu.com
editor@ijmmu.com
dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu
facebook.com/ijmmu
Copyright © 2014-2018 IJMMU. All rights reserved.