ANALISIS YURIDIS TERHADAP PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG NOMOR 1483 K/Pdt 2011 MENGENAI SENGKETA PERTANGGUNG JAWABAN PERJANJIAN KREDIT MENGGUNAKAN SURAT KUASA KHUSUS DIKAITKAN DENGAN KUHPERDATA.
ABSTRACT
Indra Wira wanazwir authorized Azhari Abdul Munthalib to act as his attorney
according to the Special Power of Attorney as a form of transfer of responibilities in
performing his duty. There is a condition that in order to propose a credit loan, a written
approval from Indra Wirawanazir’s is required. However, during the execution, the attorney
couldn’t finish the work and neglected the settlement of payment to PT Bank Sumut. The issue
is realted to the responsibility of the attorney under the credit agreement according to the
case verdict Number 1483K/Pdt/2011 using the special power of attorney under the
Indonesian Civil Code and judicial considerations of the Panel of Judges of the Supreme
Court under verdict Number 1483 K/Pdt/2011 which granted the cassation request of
Defendent I and II in accordance to Article 1792 of the Indonesian Civil Code.
The methode used in this Final Assignment is ddescriptive analysis with judicial
normative approach. Using the primary law data which is the Supreme Court Verdict
Number 1483 K/Pdt/2011, analysed with the prevailing laws. The technical data collection is
librarian study.
The result of this research identifies that the attorney, Azhari Abdul Munthalib Sinik as
the executor of the authority, neglected his duty, and this performance resulted dagame to the
authorizer, and by law a lawsuit shall be filled to ask for indemnification. To further
emphasize the damage, the authorizer asked for reparation and indemnification through
court proceedings. There is a missinterpretation on Article 1792 of the Indonesian Civil Code
by the District Court of Medan and the Higher Court of Medan, that the action performed by
the authorizer and all the rights and duties arising from the authorizer’s action is the
responsibility of the authorizer himself. The project funded by the credit facility from PT
Bank Sumut caused legal consequences for the Plaintiff and Defendant III to take
resposibility to return and setlle the said credit facility
Indra Wira wanazwir authorized Azhari Abdul Munthalib to act as his attorney
according to the Special Power of Attorney as a form of transfer of responibilities in
performing his duty. There is a condition that in order to propose a credit loan, a written
approval from Indra Wirawanazir’s is required. However, during the execution, the attorney
couldn’t finish the work and neglected the settlement of payment to PT Bank Sumut. The issue
is realted to the responsibility of the attorney under the credit agreement according to the
case verdict Number 1483K/Pdt/2011 using the special power of attorney under the
Indonesian Civil Code and judicial considerations of the Panel of Judges of the Supreme
Court under verdict Number 1483 K/Pdt/2011 which granted the cassation request of
Defendent I and II in accordance to Article 1792 of the Indonesian Civil Code.
The methode used in this Final Assignment is ddescriptive analysis with judicial
normative approach. Using the primary law data which is the Supreme Court Verdict
Number 1483 K/Pdt/2011, analysed with the prevailing laws. The technical data collection is
librarian study.
The result of this research identifies that the attorney, Azhari Abdul Munthalib Sinik as
the executor of the authority, neglected his duty, and this performance resulted dagame to the
authorizer, and by law a lawsuit shall be filled to ask for indemnification. To further
emphasize the damage, the authorizer asked for reparation and indemnification through
court proceedings. There is a missinterpretation on Article 1792 of the Indonesian Civil Code
by the District Court of Medan and the Higher Court of Medan, that the action performed by
the authorizer and all the rights and duties arising from the authorizer’s action is the
responsibility of the authorizer himself. The project funded by the credit facility from PT
Bank Sumut caused legal consequences for the Plaintiff and Defendant III to take
resposibility to return and setlle the said credit facility