ABSTRAKTesis ini bertujuan untuk menganalisa ketentuan Undang-Undang atas Sengketa
Surat Kuasa 3 Juni 2003 dan penyelenggaraan RUPSLB 17 Maret 2005 dan RUPSLB
18 Maret 2005 PT. CTPI dalam Putusan MA No. 238/PK/Pdt/2014. Penelitian yuridis
normatif ini memakai metode Penalaran Deduktif dari Soetandyo Wignjosubroto dan
menggunakan sumber hukum Undang-Undang, Yurisprudensi, buku-buku teori
hukum, surat kabar, dan kamus. Temuan inti menyatakan Surat Kuasa Yang Tidak
Dapat Ditarik Kembali tidak diperbolehkan, dan dapat ditarik melalui cara
berakhirnya Pemberian Kuasa (Psl. 1813-1819 KUHPer) dan Perikatan (Psl. 1381-
1403 KUHPer). Namun demikian penarikan Surat Kuasa 3 Juni 2003 tidak
dibenarkan karena tidak ada tanda bukti bahwa penerima kuasa telah mengetahui
tentang penarikan ini (Psl 1818 KUHPer). Penelitian juga menunjuk RUPSLB 17
Maret 2005 cacat formil karena melampaui tenggang waktu pengesahan Kementrian
dalam pendaftaran dan pengumumannya; begitu pula RUPSLB 18 Maret 2005 yang
tidak mengirimkan undangan 14 (empat belas) hari sebelumnya kepada pemegang
saham (Ps 68 jo. 69 UU PT 1995). Disarankan untuk penarikan surat kuasa selalu
dilengkapi dengan tanda terima tertulis telah diketahui penerima kuasa, dan penerima
kuasa yang merasa dirugikan dapat menuntut ganti rugi sesuai Psl. 1812 KUHPer.
RUPS hendaknya diselenggarakan sesuai Anggaran Dasar yang mematuhi ketentuan
UU Perseroan Terbatas dalam pemanggilan, penyelenggaraan, pendaftaran, dan
pengumumannya. RUPS yang mencakup agenda pembayaran hutang pribadi
pemegang saham disarankan mengadakan perjanjian subrogasi terpisah antara
investor dan pemegang saham untuk kepastian perpindahan hak kreditur ke investor
(ps. 1400 KUHPer).
ABSTRACTThe thesis analyzes the legal dispute of Irrevocable Power of Attorney 3rd June
2003, EGM 17th March 2005, and EGM 18th March 2005 of PT. CTPI in the Supreme
Court Decision No. 238/PK/Pdt/2014. This legal normative research utilizes Logical
Deductive method by Soetandyo Wignjosubroto with resources including
Constitutional Law, Jurisprudence, newspapers, dictionary, as well as books and
journals on law. The finding notes that Irrevocable Power of Attorney is not in
alignment with the law; it can therefore be revoked in methods described in Art.
1813-1819 KUHPer and in Art. 1381-1403 KUHPer governing the termination of
Power of Attorney and Contract respectively. That being said, the Irrevocable Power
of Attorney 3rd June 2003 was not properly revoked due to lack of evidence that the
beneficiary knew of its termination (Art. 1818 KUHPer). The research also notes
EGM 17th March 2005 as illegal because it surpassed the time frame to be registered
and announced (Art. 21 jo. 22 Company Act 1995); so was EGM 18th March 2005
that failed to mail its invitation 14 (fourteen) days beforehand to its shareholders
(Art. 68 jo. 69 Company Act 1995). It is advised that the revocation of Power of
Attorney should be accompanied by written notification signed by the beneficiary,
while beneficiary that suffered losses can sue the principal for compensation in
accordance to Art. 1812 KUHPer. EGM that covers payment of shareholders?
personal debt should include separate and clearly stated subrogation agreement
between investor and shareholders to ensure transfer of creditors? rights to the
investor (Art. 1400 KUHPer). EGM should attend to the Company Act in all process
of invitation, execution, registration, and announcement
T46431-Felicia Heryanto.pdf :: Unduh