ABSTRAK
Pada kasus Putusan No. 68/Pailit/2010/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst tanggal 1 November 2010oleh Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta Pusat, PT. Texplastindo Kemas Industry melakukan PerjanjianKredit dengan Bank BNI, namun ternyata Objek Jaminan Fidusia Perjanjian Kredit tersebutternyata disewakan kepada PT. Inti Abadi Karya tanpa sepengetahuan Bank BNI. Sehinggatimbul permasalahan bagaimana status hukum objek jaminan fidusia Bank BNI dalamkepailitan PT. Texplastindo Kemas Industry, serta Bagaimana upaya hukum yang dapatdilakukan oleh Bank BNI terhadap objek jaminan fidusianya tersebut. Dengan kesimpulan :Pertama, status hukum objek jaminan fidusia adalah Bank BNI tetap berstatus jaminan atashutang PT. Texplastindo Kemas Industry dengan hak yang diutamakan daripada hak krediturkrediturlainnya, namun didalamnya terdapat pula hak pengembalian harga sewa yang sudahdibayarkan namun belum dinikmati oleh PT. Inti Abadi Karya. Kedua, upaya hukum BankBNI adalah mendaftarkan hutang dengan mencantumkan hak istimewanya (jaminan fidusia),untuk kemudian melakukan eksekusi sebagaimana layaknya tidak terjadi kepailitan (sebagaikreditur separatis), dan melaporkan debitur atas pelanggaran Pasal 36 Undang-UndangJaminan Fidusia No. 42 tahun 1999, serta pengajuan sebagai kreditur konkuren dalam haljumlah hutang lebih besar nilainya daripada nilai objek jaminan fidusianya. Saran didalampenelitian ini adalah harus adanya harmonisasi Undang-Undang Jaminan Fidusia denganUndang-Undang Kepailitan, serta efektifitas instansi pelaksana eksekusi jaminan.
Abstract
At the Ba;nkruptcy case of Decision No. 68/Pailit/2010/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst datedNovember 1, 2010, by the Commercial Court of Central Jakarta, in which PT. TexplastindoKemas Industry entered into Loan Agreement with Bank BNI, however, it turned out that theObject of the Fiduciary Security in order to secure the Loan Agreement has been leased toPT. Inti Abadi Karya without the consent of Bank BNI. Therefore, the issues in this researchare regarding the legal status of the object of fiduciary security of Bank BNI in thebankruptcy of PT. Texplastindo Kemas Industry, and what are the legal efforts which can betaken by Bank BNI against the object of its fiduciary security. With the conclusion: Firstly,the legal status of object of fiduciary security remains under the entitlement of Bank BNI asthe beneficiary of fiduciary securities of PT. Texplastindo Kemas Industry as the collateral ofthe debt of PT. Texplastindo Kemas Industry with the right of preference over other creditors,however, in it there is also the right over the recovery of rental which has been paid that hasnot yet been enjoyed by PT. Inti Abadi Karya. Secondly, the legal effort of Bank BNI is toregister the debt by stating its right of preference (fiduciary security), to be then executedaccordingly in the case of bankruptcy (as creditor with preferred right), and report the debtorfor the violation of Article 36 of Fiduciary Security Law No. 42 of the year 1999, as well asthe filing of petition as concurrent creditor in the event that the amount of the debt is greaterthan the value of the object of the fiduciary security. Advices in this research are that thereshould be a harmony between the Fiduciary Security Law and the Bankruptcy Law, as well asthere should be effective institution as the executor of the security. |
