PKPU Lawsuit Of Head Of Central Chamber Of Commerce And Industry To Heirs Owner Of PT Krama Yudha Is Considered A Legal Def

The trial of the lawsuit on the Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) against the heirs of the owner of PT Krama Yudha at the Central Jakarta District Court Commercial Court, August 9, 2023. (VOI/Rizky Sulistio)

JAKARTA - The trial for the postponement of debt payment obligations (PKPU) against the heirs of the owner of PT Krama Yudha at the Central Jakarta District Court Commercial Court was held again on Wednesday, August 9.

The panel of judges asked the plaintiff and the defendant to take a family path to resolve this case. Then the trial will continue regarding the completion of the legal standing on Monday, August 14.

The defendant's attorney, Damianus Renjaan, assessed that the lawsuit filed by the General Chairperson of the Central Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KADIN), Arsjad Rasjid, worth IDR 700 billion, was legally flawed.

The reason is the case recorded at the Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court (PN) number 226/PDT.SUS-PKPU/2023/PN.NIAGA. JKT.PST has no basis.

According to Damianus, no debt matures that can be proven simply as required in Article 222 paragraph (1) and (3) in conjunction with Article 8 paragraph (4) of Law no. 37 of 2004.

Damianus said the parties who signed the deed 78 had all died and related to the validity of the deed were currently in dispute in other cases.

Currently, he continued, the lives of the PKPU applicants (second party heirs in deed 78) are feasible and prosperous, so that the purpose and purpose of giving the bonus is no longer relevant.

Then the PKPU I respondent and PKPU II respondent, are the third generation or third generation of the first party who do not know the deed of 78, so they are not based on the law and are asked to be held accountable for the deed.

Then, the bonus giving clause based on deed 78 was only carried out as long as the first party was still a shareholder in PT Krama Yudha (the company), while currently the first party is no longer the company's shareholder.

"So we clearly reject the direction of the panel of judges. Because if we make peace, it is the same as we admit that we have a debt," he said.

Meanwhile, the attorney from the plaintiff who refused to give his name did not want to comment on this case.