Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"[Pemberian kuasa merupakan langkah hukum yang dibenarkan oleh Undang-Undang. Pemberi Kuasa atau Prinsipal dapat memberikan kuasa kepada pihak yang menurutnya bisa mewakili kepentingan hukumnya. Berdasarkan Pasal 1338 KUHPerdata mengenai prinsip kebebasan berkontrak, kuasa tersebut dapat diberikan dengan kuasa yang tidak dapat ditarik kembali. Akan tetapi Pasal 1338 KUHPerdatatersebut telahdiberi batasan dengan Pasal 1337 KUHPerdata yang menyatakan bahwa suatu sebab adalah terlarang, jika sebab itu dilarang oleh undang-undang dan Pasal 85 ayat 5 UUPT menyatakan bahwa dalam hal pemegang saham hadir sendiri dalam RUPS, surat kuasa yang telah diberikan tidak berlaku untuk rapat tersebut. Padapenulisan tesis ini, penulis menggunakan bentuk penelitian normatif, dengan tipe penelitian deskriptif analistis, dan jenis data yang digunakan data sekunder. Dijelaskan dalam pokok permasalahanmengenai kuasa yang tidak dapat ditarik kembali dalam meghadiri dan memberikan suara pada Rapat Umum PemegangSaham dilihat dari peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku dan pandangan pengadilan pada tiap-tiap putusannya.Penelitian dilakukan terhadap putusan Pengadilan, mulai dari Pengadilan Negeri, Pengadilan Tinggi, dan Mahkamah Agung terhadap Sengketa Antara Para Pemegang Saham PT. Cipta Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia melawan PT. Berkah Karya Bersama. Ditemukan jawaban bahwa kuasa yang tidak dapat ditarik kembali tersebut tetap dapat dicabut berdasarkan Pasal 1337 KUHPerdata dan Pasal 85 ayat 5 UUPT;The power of attorney as a legal step allowed by regulation, principal has been given power of attorney to a party as represent in person for legal interest. Based on article 1338 Indonesian Civil Code Authorization on principle freedom of contract, The Power of Attorney can be form of hereby confers an irrevocable power of attorney. But article 1338Indonesian Civil Code has been restricted with article 1337 Indonesian Civil Code a cause is not permissible if it is prohibited by law, or if it violates good conduct, or public orderand article 85 paragraph 5 concerning Limited Liability Companies in the event that shareholders are present at the GMS in person, any power of attorney they have given shall not be valid for that meeting.In this Thesis in writer adopt a juridical normative and descriptive analyst method or research and relies on secondary data sources. For research matter this researchwill be explain the irrevocable power of attorney to attend and give a vote to General Meeting of Shareholders has been seen form all of regulations and the courts viewfrom each decisions. Research conducted on the decision by judge, starting from the Court, High Court, and The Supreme Court to dispute between shareholders PT. Cipta Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia versus PT. Berkah Karya Bersama. Already found the answer irrevocable power of attorney still be revoked based on article 1337 Indonesian Civil Code and article 85 paragraph 5 concerning Limited Liability Companies.;The power of attorney as a legal step allowed by regulation, principal has been givenpower of attorney to a party as represent in person for legal interest. Based on article1338 Indonesian Civil Code Authorization on principle freedom of contract, ThePower of Attorney can be form of hereby confers an irrevocable power of attorney.But article 1338Indonesian Civil Code has been restricted with article 1337Indonesian Civil Code a cause is not permissible if it is prohibited by law, or if itviolates good conduct, or public orderand article 85 paragraph 5 concerning LimitedLiability Companies in the event that shareholders are present at the GMS in person,any power of attorney they have given shall not be valid for that meeting.In thisThesis in writer adopt a juridical normative and descriptive analyst method orresearch and relies on secondary data sources. For research matter this researchwill beexplain the irrevocable power of attorney to attend and give a vote to GeneralMeeting of Shareholders has been seen form all of regulations and the courts viewfrom each decisions. Research conducted on the decision by judge, starting from theCourt, High Court, and The Supreme Court to dispute between shareholders PT.Cipta Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia versus PT. Berkah Karya Bersama. Alreadyfound the answer irrevocable power of attorney still be revoked based on article 1337Indonesian Civil Code and article 85 paragraph 5 concerning Limited LiabilityCompanies.;The power of attorney as a legal step allowed by regulation, principal has been givenpower of attorney to a party as represent in person for legal interest. Based on article1338 Indonesian Civil Code Authorization on principle freedom of contract, ThePower of Attorney can be form of hereby confers an irrevocable power of attorney.But article 1338Indonesian Civil Code has been restricted with article 1337Indonesian Civil Code a cause is not permissible if it is prohibited by law, or if itviolates good conduct, or public orderand article 85 paragraph 5 concerning LimitedLiability Companies in the event that shareholders are present at the GMS in person,any power of attorney they have given shall not be valid for that meeting.In thisThesis in writer adopt a juridical normative and descriptive analyst method orresearch and relies on secondary data sources. For research matter this researchwill beexplain the irrevocable power of attorney to attend and give a vote to GeneralMeeting of Shareholders has been seen form all of regulations and the courts viewfrom each decisions. Research conducted on the decision by judge, starting from theCourt, High Court, and The Supreme Court to dispute between shareholders PT.Cipta Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia versus PT. Berkah Karya Bersama. Alreadyfound the answer irrevocable power of attorney still be revoked based on article 1337Indonesian Civil Code and article 85 paragraph 5 concerning Limited LiabilityCompanies., The power of attorney as a legal step allowed by regulation, principal has been givenpower of attorney to a party as represent in person for legal interest. Based on article1338 Indonesian Civil Code Authorization on principle freedom of contract, ThePower of Attorney can be form of hereby confers an irrevocable power of attorney.But article 1338Indonesian Civil Code has been restricted with article 1337Indonesian Civil Code a cause is not permissible if it is prohibited by law, or if itviolates good conduct, or public orderand article 85 paragraph 5 concerning LimitedLiability Companies in the event that shareholders are present at the GMS in person,any power of attorney they have given shall not be valid for that meeting.In thisThesis in writer adopt a juridical normative and descriptive analyst method orresearch and relies on secondary data sources. For research matter this researchwill beexplain the irrevocable power of attorney to attend and give a vote to GeneralMeeting of Shareholders has been seen form all of regulations and the courts viewfrom each decisions. Research conducted on the decision by judge, starting from theCourt, High Court, and The Supreme Court to dispute between shareholders PT.Cipta Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia versus PT. Berkah Karya Bersama. Alreadyfound the answer irrevocable power of attorney still be revoked based on article 1337Indonesian Civil Code and article 85 paragraph 5 concerning Limited LiabilityCompanies.]"

"ABSTRAKPemegang saham yang ingin melaksanakan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham RUPS dan permintaan untuk diselenggarakan RUPS diabaikan oleh Direksi dan Komisaris, Pemegang Saham dapat meminta diadakannya RUPS, yaitu dengan mengajukan permohonan penetapan pemberian izin Untuk Melakukan Pemanggilan dan Menyelenggarakan Sendiri Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham ke Pengadilan Negeri. Hakim apabila mengabulkan sebuah permohonan penetapan akan menjatuhkan penetapan. Tesis ini membahas mengenai keabsahan terhadap permohonan penetapan RUPS yang dikabulkan berupa putusan dan mengenai upaya hukum yang dapat dilakukan terhadap putusan mengenai persetujuan penyelenggaraan RUPS. Pokok permasalahan dalam penelitian ini meliputi pertimbangan Hakim dalam memberikan putusan atas permohonan penetapan penyelenggaraan RUPS dan upaya-upaya hukum pihak terkait terhadap putusan pengadilan mengenai persetujuan penyelenggaraan RUPS. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yuridis normatif. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah Putusan yang berisi Penetapan pemberian izin kepada Pemohon untuk melakukan pemanggilan sendiri RUPS oleh Pengadilan Negeri merupakan aturan khusus dalam dinamika praktik penyelesaian Permohonan di Pengadilan. Permohonan yang diajukan oleh Pemohon akan diselesaikan dengan proses Hukum Acara Perdata yang biasa digunakan untuk menyelesaikan perkara contentiosa dan upaya hukum yang dapat dilakukan terhadap putusan tersebut pun terbatas dan/atau limitatif yang wajib tunduk pada ketentuan pasal 80 ayat 6 dan 7 UUPT 2007.

---

ABSTRACTShareholders who want to implement General Meeting of Shareholders GMS and requests to be held The GMS is ignored by the Board of Directors and Commissioners Shareholders may ask for arranging the GMS by submitting an application the determination of the provision of licenses to perform call for and administering own general meeting of shareholders to the district court So, judge when answer the stipulation of will drop the stipulation of. This thesis discusses About the legality of to entreaty the stipulation of GMS who granted of decision and About the legal action can be implemented towards the decree of the heavenly regarding the approval of the convention of GMS. The main issues in this research includes the judge 39 s consideration in giving decision on the pleas for the execution of the GMS and legal action of the parties concerned against the court 39 s decision concerning the approval of the GMS. This research is a normative juridical research. The results of this research is the decision containing the Stipulation for the Applicant To perform call for GMS themselves by district courts is a special rule in the dynamics of practices the completion of the plea in court. Plea filed by the applicant will be solved by process Civil Law Procedure commonly used to solve cases contentiosa and the legal action that can be made against such decisions is limited, which is subject to the terms article 80 paragraph 6 and 7 UUPT 2007. "

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai kewajiban Direksi sebagai organ Perseroan yang mempunyai tugas untuk melakukan kepengurusan Perseroan. Kewajiban Direksi tersebut terkait dengan kewajiban untuk menyelenggarakan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham ( RUPS ) baik RUPS Tahunan maupun RUPS Lainnya sebagaimana diamanatkan oleh Undang Undang. Selain kewajiban Direksi dalam penyelenggaraan RUPS, tesis ini juga membahas mengenai peranan institusi peradilan dalam memberikan kepastian hukum terkait dengan permohonan Pemegang Saham Perseroan untuk melakukan pemanggilan sendiri RUPS karena Direksi tidak melaksanakan kewajibannya tersebut. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif yang dilakukan secara deskriptif analisis melalui bahan-bahan kepustakaan dan analisa terhadap penetapan dan putusan institusi peradilan.Hasil penelitian menyarankan agar Direksi tetap memenuhi permintaan Pemegang Saham yang meminta penyelenggaraan RUPS sebagai bagian dari hak Pemegang Saham. Pengadilan Negeri yang mempunyai wewenang untuk menetapkan permohonan Pemegang Saham dalam hal Pemegang Saham mengajukan permohonan penetapan pemberian ijin pemanggilan sendiri RUPS wajib memeriksa dengan cermat permohonan Pemegang Saham tersebut apakah sudah memenuhi persyaratan dan ada kepentingan yang wajar dari Pemegang Saham untuk menyelenggarakan RUPS tersebut.

---

This Thesis contains analysis of obligation of Board of Directors as an organ of a limited liability company to manage the company. Such obligation is related to conduct General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS) of the company, either Annual GMS or Extra-Ordinary GMS as mandated by the law. Besides analyzes the obligation to conduct GMS, this Thesis also analyzes the role of Court of Law institution in providing law assurance in relation with the right of shareholder of a company to by itself make convocation of/formal call for the GMS, in case the Board of Directors did not do that. This analysis is a legal normative analysis, which carried-out by descriptive analysis method to literature materials and analysis to decisions or verdicts of Court of Law.Considering the result of this analysis, the Board of Directors should suggestively honor the right of shareholder who requested the GMS to be conducted. An authorized District Court is competent to examine if the request of shareholder has duly fulfilled all the requirements and if are there any normal interest of such shareholder in requesting the GMS."

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham Luar Biasa (untuk selanjutnya disebut RUPS LB) yang dilakukan dan dihadiri oleh seluruh pemegang saham PT. Golden Bird Metro pada tanggal 18 Maret 2008. RUPS LB ini adalah yang kedua kalinya diadakan karena pada saat RUPS pertama tidak memenuhi kuorum. Panggilan Rapat kedua dilakukan oleh Direksi pada tanggal 10 Maret 2008. Kemudian RUPS LB ini menimbulkan permasalahan hukum dan menjadi objek sengketa di Pengadilan. Akta Risalah RUPS LB diminta pembatalan di pengadilan, dan Notaris yang membuat akta tersebut juga digugat oleh pihak yang merasa dirugikan. Dalam kasus ini Penggugat yang merupakan Direktur Utama dan sekaligus pemegang saham 33,3 % saham dari PT. Golden Bird Metro menggugat Notaris PM, notaris di Jakarta Pusat yang membuat akta risalah RUPS LB PT. Golden Bird Metro nomor 24 tanggal 18 Maret 2008. Penggugat menyatakan bahwa pada saat pelaksanaan RUPS tidak pernah ada pembahasan terhadap agenda RUPS dikarenakan pada rapat terjadi perdebatan mengenai siapa yang berwenang memimpin RUPS dan menyatakan tergugat telah menyalahgunakan wewenang sebagai notaris dengan menuangkan rekayasa peristiwa hukum RUPS LB ke dalam berita acara RUPS. RUPS LB ini bukan dipimpin oleh Pengugat karena dalam kedudukannya selaku Direksi masih terlibat sengketa dengan perseroan di pengadilan. Menurut ketentuan yang berlaku pasal 99 Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas Nomor 40 Tahun 2007, Direktur Utama (Penggugat) menjadi tidak berwenang mewakili perseroan. Penyelenggaraan RUPS LB ini sesuai dengan ketentuan Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas mengenai jangka waktu pemanggilan RUPS akan tetapi melanggar Anggaran Dasar perseroan mengenai pihak yang berwenang memimpin RUPS. Perbuatan hukum memimpin Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham tidak termasuk tindakan hukum pengurusan perseoran. Penelitian ini dilakukan berdasarkan metode penelitian kepustakaan yang bersifat yuridis normatif.

---

This thesis discusses Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders (hereinafter referred to as RUPS LB) executed and attended by all shareholders of PT. Golden Bird Metro on 18 March 2008. This RUPS LB is convened in the second time due to the failure of quorum in the First RUPS. The Second Meeting Summon was convened by Directors on 10th March 2008. Then this RUPS LB results in legal dispute and becomes the object of dispute in the Court. Deed of Minutes of RUPS LB is requested to be ineffective by the Court, and Notary who prepared the deed is also claimed by a suffered party. In this case, the Plaintiff constituting President Director and the holder of 33% shares from PT. Golden Bird Metro files claim to the Notary of PM, notary public practicing in Central Jakarta executing the deed of minutes of Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders of PT. Golden Bird Metro Number 24 dated 18 March 2008. The Plaintiff said that during the performance of RUPS, there was no discussion concerning the agenda of RUPS, because in the course of RUPS, there was debate regarding an authorized party who would chair the RUPS and declared that the defendant has misused the authority as notary by entering manipulation of legal circumstance of RUPS LB into in minutes of RUPS. This RUPS LB was not chaired by the Plaintiff because in their capacity as Directors, they remain in dispute in court. Pursuant to the prevailing provisions under Article 99 of Law of Limited Liability Company Number 40 Year 2007, President Director (The Plaintiff) shall reserve no authority to represent the company. The performance of this RUPS LB is in accordance with provision of Law of Limited Liability Company regarding period of summon of RUPS, but they violated Articles of Association of the company regarding a party authorized to chair the RUPS. Legal act in chairing the General Meeting of shareholders shall exclude legal act, administration of law, personal administration. This research is conducted on the basis of library research method with the nature of normative jurisdiction."

"ABSTRAKTesis ini membahas mengenai kewenangan Pengadilan Negeri dalam halmengabulkan permohonan Pemegang Saham untuk menyelenggarakan danmenentukan kuorum dalam Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham. Kewenangan tersebutdiberikan oleh Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas kepada Pengadilan Negeri gunamencegah kemacetan penyelenggaraan dan pengambilan keputusan dalam RapatUmum Pemegang Saham Perseroan yang apabila Rapat Umum Pemegang Sahamtersebut tidak dapat berjalan, maka akan dapat memengaruhi berjalannya suatuperseroan. Dalam memberikan dan mengeluarkan penetapan, Pengadilan Negerimenggunakan pertimbangan hukum berupa ketentuan dan pengaturan tentangpenyelenggaraan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham (RUPS) yang terdapat di dalamAnggaran Dasar Perseroan dan Undang-Undang No 40 Tahun 2007 tentangPerseroan Terbatas. Selain itu, hakim dalam memberikan penetapan jugamemperhatikan hal-hal lain yang diajukan pemohon seperti surat-surat sebagai buktitertulis, keterangan pemohon sampai dengan ada atau tidaknya sangkalan yangdiberikan oleh termohon (apabila ada) atau ada atau tidaknya penolakan yangdiajukan oleh Direksi sebagai pihak yang berwenang dalam menyelenggarakan RapatUmum Pemegang Saham. Namun, pada akhirnya pertimbangan hakim tetap mengacukepada Anggaran Dasar Perseroan dan Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas No 40Tahun 2007 yang berlaku. Selama tidak bertentangan dengan Anggaran Dasar danUndang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas No 40 Tahun 2007, maka hakim akanmengabulkan permohonan penyelenggaraan dan penetapan kuorum Rapat UmumPemegang Saham tersebut.

---

Abstract This thesis analysis about the authority of the District Court in granting approval onthe application for conducting and determining the quorum in general meeting ofshareholders. This authority is given by The Law of Limited Liability Company tothe District Court to avoid the delay in the implementation and decision making in thegeneral meeting of shareholders, which affecting the company to run its activity. Ingranting of its approval or decision, the District Court uses legal consideration inform of provisions and regulation regarding implementation of the General Meetingof Shareholders which is stated in the company?s Articles of Association and LawNo. 40 year 2007 regarding Limited Liability Company. In addition to that, inproviding the stipulation, the Judge will also consider about other matters submittedby the applicant such as documents as written evidence, other information fromapplicant up to if any refusal from the defendant or if any refusal from Board ofDirectors as the party who has the authority to conduct General Meeting ofShareholders. But at last, Judge consideration shall refer to the valid Company?sArticle of Association and the Law of Limited Liabilty Company No. 40 year 2007.As long as there is no contradiction with the Company?s Article of Association andthe Law of Limited Liability Company No. 40 year 2007, then the Judge will grantthe decision of implementation and quorum determination of the General Meeting ofShareholders."

"Tujuan penelitian ini dilakukan untuk menganalisis akibat hukum yang akan timbul dari perjanjian restrukturisasi kredit yang dibuat dibawah tangan dan penggunaan akta notariil sebagai instrumen perlindungan hukum yang melindungi para pihak. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam karya tulis ini adalah yuridis normatif dengan menghasilkan bentuk karya ilmiah deskriptif. Penelitian ini memperoleh kesimpulan bahwa perjanjian restrukturisasi kredit komersial sebaiknya dibuat oleh Notaris dalam bentuk akta autentik untuk menjamin kepastian hukum dan memberikan perlindungan hukum bagi para pihak.......This study was conducted to determine the legal consequences arising from the credit restructuring agreement by using private agreement and the use of notarial deed as an instrument of legal protection for the parties. The research method used in this paper is normative juridical by producing a form of descriptive scientific work. This study concludes that the commercial credit restructuring agreement should be made by a notary in the form of an authentic deed to ensure legal certainty and provide legal protection for the parties."

"Perseroan Terbatas sebagai badan hukum tidak bisa melakukan kegiatannya sendiri sehingga memerlukan wakil yang disebut organ perseroan. Salah satu organ perseroan adalah Direksi yang berwenang dan bertanggung jawab penuh atas pengurusan perseroan untuk kepentingan perseroan serta mewakili perseroan, sesuai dengan maksud dan tujuan perseroan baik di dalam maupun di luar pengadilan dan mengambil tindakan terkait managemen dan kepemilikan dari perusahaan serta mengadakan perjanjian perikatan antara perseroan dengan pihak lain dan sebaliknya sesuai dengan anggaran dasar perseroan. Tugas-tugas yang dibebankan kepada direksi dalam menjalankan aktivitas Perseroan Terbatas sangatlah banyak dan dalam kondisi tertentu mungkin terjadi Direktur tidak dapat menjalankan kewenangannya sehingga kewenangan direksi dalam mengurus perseroan dikuasakan kepada pihak lain. Pemberian kuasa direksi ini merupakan hal yang umum pada masa sekarang ini, dan merupakan hal yang penting dalam aktivitas bisnis perseroan. Namun meskipun dibolehkan dalam pasal 103 Undang Undang Perseroan Terbatas (UUPT) nomor 40 Tahun 2007 hal ini tidak diatur secara terperinci sehingga dalam pelaksanaan pemberian kuasa direksi masih terdapat permasalahan mengenai kategori dan batasan kewenangan yang dapat dialihkan oleh Direksi kepada pihak lain.Hal ini terlihat dari kasus Sengketa Pengambilalihan Saham PT Sima Bintang Niaga di mana telah terjadi penggunaan surat kuasa Direksi untuk melakukan pemanggilan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham. Untuk mengetahui dan menganalisa hal-hal tersebut, dilakukan penelitian yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute approach).

---

As a legal entity, a limited liability company a is unable to do its business activities by itself and therefore needs representatives to do it. Director is one of its representative organs who is responsible and fully liable to do all the necessary activities related to the company and manage the company for the interest of and in accordance with the purpose and objectives of the company. Director is also entitled to represent the company within and outside the court of law and to take all acts concerning both the management and the ownership of the company and to bind the company with other parties and vice versa as stated in the Articles of Association of the company. Managing daily business activities of the company is a huge task and in certain condition a director may not be able to do his authority and therefore he or she may give the authority to other party. The used of a power of attorney is common nowadays and is important in business activities and even though it is governed in article 103 the Law of Republic Indonesia number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company, the regulation does not provide details explanation as well as the procedures concerning the power of attorney given by the director of a company. This has lead to many problems in terms of the framework and limitation of the authorities that can be given to other party. One of the case related to the power of attorney given by a director to a third party is shown in the controversy of the transfer of shares of PT Sima Bintang Niaga whereby the power of attorney given by the director was used to do the legal action of notifying the shareholders for a General Meeting of Shareholders. The method used in analysing this research is a juridical normative method with statute approach."