The Central Jakarta Commercial Court on September 20th 2022, rejected the application for Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang, shorted as ‘PKPU’) submitted by PT. Commit Trans Angkasa as PKPU Petitioner against PT. Raena Ruma Indonesia as PKPU Respondent.
In its decision, the Panel of Judges of the Central Jakarta Commercial Court found and considered the fact that the PKPU Petitioner did not meet one of the requirements to apply for a PKPU petition, particularly for the fact there was an intentional transfer of receivables through a Cessie agreement between the PKPU Petitioner and a third party without informing this agreement to the Respondent. Through their attorney from Sheyoputra Law Office, PT. Raena Ruma Indonesia as PKPU Respondent was able to prove that the PKPU Petitioner never sought out their approval on the transfer of the receivables. The last communication between the PKPU Petitioner and Respondent was limited to a warning letter from the PKPU Petitioner asking the PKPU Respondent to pay their debt of approximately IDR 574 million. This letter was acknowledged by the PKPU Petitioner themselves as their first and final warning letter (somatie) but after sending the letter there was no further communication between PKPU Petitioner with PKPU Respondent. This indicates that the PKPU Respondent did not endorse any Cessie agreement between the PKPU Petitioner and any third party as new creditor.
The Judges wisely considered that the presence of third-party creditor in this case failed to meet the requirements in applying for PKPU Petition. Furthermore, there is no prior relationship between the individual creditor and the PKPU Respondent. The Judges therefore considers that this is contradictory to the law and justice, because if left unchecked, it could become a precedent for anyone to deceive one another by making up new creditors who may have no legal relevance to the PKPU Respondent.
Based on the above consideration, it is in the opinion of the Judges that the requirements for submitting a PKPU application as regulated in the Article 222 Paragraph (1) of the Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations was not fulfilled. Accordingly, there is a sufficient reason to reject PT. Commit Trans Angkasa’s PKPU Petition.
Furthermore, the decision of the Central Jakarta Commercial Court in this case are decided as follows:
Responding to the decision of the Central Jakarta Commercial Court, Donny A. Sheyoputra from Sheyoputra Law Office, who was accompanied by his colleague, Yanto Jaya, stated:
“We are very happy and appreciate the Panel of Judges who have decided this case fairly and on the basis of all legal facts revealed during the hearings. It is appropriate to reject the PKPU Petition as it does not fulfill various requirements stipulated in the law, particularly by having another individual creditor through a Cessie agreement without informing our client, PT. Raena Ruma Indonesia, to obtain their endorsement or at least acknowledgement as stated in the Indonesian Civil Code. Furthermore, it was proven that the individual creditor actually had a legal relationship with the PKPU Petitioner and not with our client as the PKPU Respondent. Apart from that, the written evidence submitted by the PKPU Petitioner namely all invoices addressed to our clients had no due dates for payment. Although the judges only considered one requirement which is related to the existence of other creditors, for us this was sufficient and reasonable to reject the PKPU Petition.”
