Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
Perubahan susunan anggota Direksi/ Dewan Komisaris Perseroan merupakan aktivitas penting yang sarat dengan konflik kepentingan di antara para pemangku-kepentingan dalam Perseroan. Perubahan ini disyaratkan dilakukan berdasarkan keputusan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham (selanjutnya disebut “RUPS”). Penyelenggaraan RUPS ini merupakan wewenang Direksi, dan dalam hal-hal tertentu, pemanggilan RUPS dapat dilakukan oleh Dewan Komisaris, atau pemegang saham dengan kriteria tertentu atas izin Ketua Pengadilan Negeri (selanjutnya disebut “PN”) yang berwenang. Dalam situasi adanya konflik kepentingan antara pemegang saham yang memiliki hak untuk meminta diadakannya RUPS tentang perubahan susunan anggota Direksi/Dewan Komisaris di satu pihak dan Direksi/ Dewan Komisaris di lain pihak, maka dapat dipastikan pemegang saham yang bersangkutan tidak akan menghadapi hambatan yuridis yang signifikan dalam penyelenggaraan RUPS dengan agenda itu, karena UUPT telah menyiapkan jalan keluar dengan memberikan hak kepada pemegang saham terkait untuk dapat melakukan sendiri pemanggilan RUPS tersebut atas izin Ketua PN yang berwenang, atau dalam hal permohonan izin pemanggilan RUPS tersebut ditolak oleh PN terkait, pemegang saham yang bersangkutan masih dapat mengajukan upaya kasasi untuk izin dimaksud. Akan tetapi, dalam hal konflik kepentingan terjadi antara pemegang saham/RUPS yang telah mengambil keputusan tentang perubahan susunan anggota Direksi/Dewan Komisaris di satu pihak, dan Direksi/Dewan Komisaris yang telah diberhentikan di lain pihak, maka konflik ini berpotensi menimbulkan penolakan dalam pelaksanaan keputusan RUPS tersebut oleh Direksi/Dewan Komisaris yang lama, dengan cara tetap menguasai Perseroan secara de facto dan/atau mengajukan gugatan pembatalan keputusan RUPS terkait. Dari beberapa kasus yang menjadi obyek dalam penelitian ini, hambatan yuridis teridentifikasi dalam upaya hukum yang dapat dilakukan oleh pemegang saham terkait dalam realisasi keputusan RUPS ini apabila secara de facto Perseroan masih dikuasai Direksi/Dewan Komisaris yang lama, yaitu hanya melalui gugatan perdata. Proses panjang upaya di pengadilan justru mengancam kelangsungan hidup Perseroan. Hambatan yuridis yang lain teridentifikasi pula dalam masa daluwarsa untuk pengajuan gugatan pembatalan keputusan RUPS. Masa daluwarsa ini masih berdasarkan Hukum Acara Perdata, dan bagi Perseroan masih relatif cukup panjang. Hambatan ini menimbulkan ketidak-pastian hukum baik bagi Perseroan maupun pihak ketiga yang akan atau telah melakukan hubungan hukum dengan Perseroan, khususnya bila hubungan hukum itu didasarkan oleh keputusan RUPS. ......A change of members of the Company’s Board of Directors/Auditors, is an important activity which has many conflicts of interest among stakeholders in the Company. This change is required to be based on a resolution of the shareholders’ meeting (refer to as “Meeting”). The convening of this Meeting is an authority of the Board of Directors, and in some particular cases, the convocation of this Meeting may be conducted by the Board of Auditors, or by a specified shareholder with a permission from the Head of a competent Local Court (refer to as “LC”). In a situation where there is a conflict of interest between a specified shareholder who has a right to demand the convocation of a Meeting for changing members of the Board of Directors/Auditors in one side, and the Board of Directors/Auditors in another side, it is clarified that the related shareholder will not face significant judicial obstacles for convoking this Meeting. Because, the Company Law has prepared a solution, by providing that shareholder a right to convoke this Meeting with a permission from the Head of a competent LC, or in case the application for this permission is rejected by the LC, the related shareholder may appeal for that permission to the Supreme Court. However, in case the conflict occurs between the shareholder(s)/the Meeting which has taken a resolution for changing the members of the Board of Directors/Auditors in one side, and the dismissed Board of Directors/ Auditors in another side, this conflict will potentially cause to a refusal from the former Directors/ Auditors for executing that resolution, by occupying the Company as de facto Directors/Auditors and/or by filing a lawsuit for voiding the related resolution. From some cases those are being objected in this research, a judicial obstacle is identified in the legal effort that may be taken by the shareholder for realizing this Meeting’s resolution when the Company is still occupied in de facto by the former Directors/Auditors, that is only by filing a civil lawsuit. The long process for this judicial effort, on the contrary, will threaten an existence of the Company itself. Another judicial obstacle is also identified in the valid time-span for filing a lawsuit for voiding a Meeting’s resolution. This time-span is still based on the Law on Civil Procedure, and relatively too long for a Company. This obstacle causes a law uncertainty for both the Company and the third party who will make or has made a legal transaction with the Company, especially if that transaction is based on a Meeting’s resolution.

Abstrak :
Pandemi Covid-19 memaksa manusia untuk memanfaatkan teknologi dalam melakukan kegiatan sehari-hari. RUPS secara daring dapat menjadi solusi untuk tetap berjalannya RUPS dalam Perseroan Terbatas. Pelaksanaan RUPS secara elektronik dapat dilakukan dengan berlandaskan Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas, Perseroan Terbatas Tertutup belum memiliki regulasi untuk penyelenggaraan RUPS secara elektronik. Permasalahan yang diangkat dalam penelitian ini adalah mengenai Penyelenggaraan RUPS secara elektronik dan keabsahan akta pernyataan keputusan rapat yang dibuat berdasarkan notulen RUPS melalui Video Conference pada PT X. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah kepustakaan yuridis-normatif.Hasil dari Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa Penyelenggaraan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham Perseroan Terbatas PT X yang dilaksanakan melalui Video Conference telah memenuhi ketentuan penyelenggaraan pada Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas, namun Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham secara elektronik belum memiliki regulasi yang lebih rinci, dan Akta pernyataan Keputusan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham PT X sah secara hukum karena secara memenuhi syarat terkait formil dan materilnya. ......The Covid-19 pandemic that hit the world forced humans to utilize technology in carrying out daily activities. Online GMS can be a solution to keep the GMS running in Limited Liability Companies. The implementation of the GMS electronically can be done based on the Limited Liability Company Act, Closed Limited Liability Companies do not yet have regulations for the implementation of the GMS electronically. The issues raised in this study are about the implementation of the GMS electronically and the validity of the deed of meeting decision statement made based on the minutes of the GMS through Video Conference at PT X. The research method used in this study is juridical-normative literature. The results of this Research concluded that the Implementation of the General Meeting of Shareholders of PT X Limited Liability Company conducted through Video Conference has fulfilled the provisions of the implementation of the Limited Liability Company Law, but the General Meeting of Shareholders electronically does not have more detailed regulations, and the Deed of Statement of The General Meeting of Shareholders of PT X is legally valid because it is qualified related to formil and materially.

Abstrak :
ABSTRACT Tesis ini membahas tentang batasan kewenangan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham (?RUPS?) sehubungan dengan situasi dimana suatu RUPS tidak terselenggara sebagaimana disyaratkan ketentuan UUPT No. 40/2007, hal mana mempengaruhi keabsahan keputusan RUPS tersebut. Kewenangan RUPS untuk memulihkan perbuatan hukum yang dikategorikan ultra vires dengan cara meratifikasi atau membatalkan perbuatan hukum tersebut belum diatur secara jelas dalam UUPT No. 40/2007, kecuali ketentuan sehubungan dengan RUPS yang pertama kali diadakan oleh Perseroan sejak Perseroan disahkan menjadi badan hukum. Tidak adanya aturan yang jelas dalam pemulihan perbuatan ultra vires oleh RUPS dapat mempengaruhi kepastian hukum atas keabsahan keputusan RUPS dan ini akhirnya dapat berdampak terhadap kepentingan Perseroan dan pihak ketiga yang mempunyai hubungan hukum dengan Perseroan.

---

ABSTRACT This thesis discusses the limits of the authority of the General Meeting of Shareholders (?GMS?) in connection with the convening of a GMS which was not carried out in accordance with the provisions of Company Law No. 40/2007, which matter affects the validity of the GMS? decision. The GMS?s authority to remedy a legal act which is categorized as ultra vires by way of ratification or cancellation of the legal act has not been fully regulated yet in the Company Law No. 40/2007 except for some provisions in relation to the first GMS held by the Company after the Company has obtained the status of a separate legal entity. The absence of clear provisions on the remedy of ultra vires acts by the GMS may affect the validity of the GMS? decision, this could ultimately also affect the Company?s interests and third parties who have a legal relationship with the Company.

Abstrak :
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.

Abstrak :
[ABSTRAK
Undang-Undang No. 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas menetapkan 3 (tiga) organ perseroan yaitu Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham, Direksi, dan Dewan Komisaris. Direksi berfungsi pada pokoknya untuk bertanggung jawab penuh atas pengurusan perseroan untuk kepentingan perseroan sedangkan Dewan Komisaris berfungsi melakukan pengawasan umum dan/atau khusus sesuai dengan Anggaran Dasar serta memberi nasihat kepada Direksi. Pada setiap masa akhir jabatannya, Direksi mempertanggung jawabkan pengurusan perseroan dalam Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham, yang memiliki kewenangan yang tidak diberikan kepada Direksi atau Dewan Komisaris dalam batas yang ditentukan Undang-Undang dan/atau Anggaran Dasar perseroan. Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham kemudian memberikan pelunasan dan pembebasan tanggung jawab (acquit et de charge) kepada Direksi jika tindakan kepengurusan perseroan telah tercermin dalam laporan keuangan. Pada tahun 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media sebagai perseroan yang menyediakan jasa internet (Internet Service Provider) menyelenggarakan jasanya melalui jaringan bergerak seluler milik PT Indosat Tbk melalui perjanjian kerjasama broadband. Kerjasama ini telah dipertanggung jawabkan dalam Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham pada tahun 2011 dan telah mendapatkan acquit et de charge kepada Direksi yang diwakili oleh Indar Atmanto selaku Direktur Utama. Kejaksaan Agung sebagai aparat penegak hukum mendakwa Indar Atmanto telah menggunakan frekuensi 2.1 GHz (3G) untuk menyelenggarakan jasa internetnya sehingga mengakibatkan kerugian negara sedangkan telah diketahui Direksi telah mendapatkan acquit et de charge dari Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham. Permasalahan hukum timbul atas pertanyaan sejauh mana acquit et de charge melindungi Direksi secara perdata dan pidana.

---

ABSTRACT
Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements. In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements. In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements. In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements. In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements. In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements. In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment., Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements. In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.]

Abstrak :
Tesis ini membahas mengenai tanggung jawab Notaris terhadap akta relaas yang cacat hukum, serta akibat hukum terhadap akta relaas yang cacat hukum. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah penelitian yang bersifat yuridis normatif dengan data sekunder yang menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif. Notaris dituntut untuk bertindak secara amanah, jujur, seksama, mandiri, tidak berpihak dan menjaga kepentingan pihak yang terkait perbuatan hokum. Prakteknya sering dijumpai akta-akta Notaris yang seharusnya bersifat otentik dan dijadikan alat bukti yang sempurna, ternyata menjadi masalah di kehidupan masyarakat. Banyak pula dijumpai Notaris selaku pejabat umum tempat masyarakat mencari kepastian ternyata dalam menjalankan jabatannya tidak sesuai peraturan perundang-undangan hukum dan mencederai sumpah jabatannya. Penulis memiliki 2 (dua) permasalahan yang akan dibahas dalam penelitian ini, yaitu pertama tentang bagaimana akibat hukum atas akta relaas yang dibuat oleh Notaris tidak disetujui beberapa pemegang saham dan bagaimana tanggung jawab hukum Notaris terhadap akta relaas yang dibuatnya tidak disetujui beberapa pemegang saham. Hasil penelitian penulis atas akibat hukum terhadap Akta Notaris yang tidak memenuhi syarat dan prosedur pembuatan akta autentik sesuai UUJN dan UUPT dapat dibatalkan oleh para pihak dan terdegradasi kekuatan hukum pembuktiannya menjadi akta dibawah tangan. Notaris yang lalai maupun yang sengaja melakukan perbuatan melawan hukum dapat dikenakan sanksi-sanksi terkait atas perbuatannya. Notaris dalam pembuatan akta relaas memiliki 3 (tiga) tanggung jawab, yaitu tanggung jawab secara perdata, secara pidana maupun secara administratif.

---

This thesis is about responsibility of notary towards deeds of relaas which found to be flawed, and how the legal consequences towards them. The method used in this study is juridical normative research that used secondary data and qualitative approach. The Notaries are required to act in a trustworthy, honest, thorough, independent, impartial and take care of all interests parties related to legal actions. In practice, the Notary deeds that should be authentic and used as perfect evidence, often found to become a problem in the society. In addition, the notary as a public official where the people seeks legal certainty, was often found in carrying out their position not according to regulations and injured his oath of office. The author has two problems that will be discussed in this research. First about how the legal consequences of the voluntary deed made by a Notary are not approved by some shareholders and second, how the legal responsibility of the Notary on the relaas deed made is not approved by some shareholders. The results of the authors research on the legal consequences of the Notary Deed that violates the terms and the procedures according the regulations , can be canceled by the parties and degraded the legal force of proof to be under the hand. Notaries who are negligent or who intentionally commit acts against the law can be subject to sanctions related to their actions. A notary who makes a relaas deed having three responsibilities, namely civil, criminal and administrative responsibilities.

Abstrak :
Tesis ini membahas kasus mengenai PT. Eco Enviromental Energy Indonesia yang di dalam penyelenggaraan salah satu RUPS-nya telah terjadi penolakan atas kehadiran wakil dari salah satu pemegang saham di dalam RUPS tersebut. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kepustakaan dan analisis kasus dengan mengumpulkan data sekunder guna menunjang penulisan.dengan studi kasus terhadap penolakan kehadiran wakil pemegang saham dalam RUPS Luar Biasa PT. Eco Enviromental Energy Indonesia pada tanggal 21 Mei 2011. Analisa terhadap putusan dan pertimbangan Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Tinggi Pekanbaru mengenai kasus ini bahwa pemberian kuasa oleh pemegang saham kepada seseorang untuk mewakilinya dalam RUPS Luar Biasa merupakan hak dari pemegang saham sesuai dengan Pasal 85 ayat (1) Undang-undang Nomor 40 tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan terbatas. Ketua Rapat sendiri di dalam memutuskan orang-orang yang dapat hadir dalam RUPS harus disertai dengan alasan dan dasar hukum yang tepat, dimana di dalam kasus ini Ketua Rapat yang menolak kehadiran wakil salah satu pemegang saham dengan alasan orang tersebut bukanlah orang dari Perseroan adalah tidak tepat dan dianggap sebagai perbuatan melawan hukum, dimana atas hal tersebut mengakibatkan keputusan-keputusan yang diambil dalam RUPS menjadi tidak sah.

---

This thesis addresses the case of PT. Eco Enviromental Energy Indonesia which in one of its GMOS has occurred rejection of the presence of a representative of one of the shareholders in the GMOS. This research is done using literature method and an analysis over a case which is completed by collecting secondary data to support the reference of this thesis with case study of the rejection of the presence of shareholder representatives at the Extraordinary GMOS of PT. Eco Enviromental Energy Indonesia on May 21st, 2011. Analysis of the decision and consideration of High Court of Pekanbaru Judges about this case was that the authorization by the shareholders to someone to represent him at the Extraordinary GMOS is the right of shareholders in accordance with Article 85 paragraph (1) of Law No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company. Chairman of the Meeting itself in deciding the people who can attend the GMOS must be based on reasons and appropriate legal basis, which in this case Chairman of the Meeting denied the presence of representative of one of the shareholders by reason of that person is not the person of the Company is not right and considered as a tort, which is resulted thst the decisions taken at the GMOS becomes invalid.

Abstrak :
Tesis ini membahas mengenai suatu akta berita acara Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham yang dibuat oleh Notaris yang bertentangan dengan Anggaran Dasar Perseroan dan Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas UUPT . Oleh karena pengambilan keputusan dalam Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham RUPS yang tercantum dalam akta berita acara Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham yang dibuat oleh Notaris tersebut merugikan pemegang saham perseroan yang tidak hadir dalam RUPS. Rumusan masalah yang diangkat dalam tesis ini adalah mengenai keabsahan akta berita acara RUPS yang bertentangan dengan Anggaran Dasar Perseroan dan UUPT, dan implikasi hukumnya terhadap akta berita acara RUPS tersebut. Penelitian tesis ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif, yaitu penelitian hukum dilakukan dengan cara meneliti bahan pustaka. Penelitian bersifat deskriptif analitis yang bermaksud memperkuat teori yang sudah ada. Kemudian simpulan dari tesis ini adalah bahwa akta berita acara RUPS yang bertentangan dengan Anggaran Dasar Perseroan dan UUPT adalah tidak sah dan batal demi hukum, dan implikasi hukum tidak hanya terjadi pada akta saja melainkan juga kepada perseroan, para pemegang saham dan Notaris. Sehingga organ perseroan dan Notaris perlu memahami dengan baik segala ketentuan dalam Anggaran Dasar Perseroan dan UUPT. ......This thesis discusses minutes of a general meeting of shareholders by Notary which made against Constitutional Documents and Law of The Republic of Indonesia Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company Company Law 40 2007 . Therefore that minutes of a general meeting of shareholders causes financial loss to another shareholder who absence the general meeting of shareholders GMS. Issues of this thesis are the legality minutes of a general meeting of shareholders by Notary which made against Article of Association and Company Law 40 2007 and legal implication towards that minutes of a general meeting of shareholders. This thesis uses normative legal research which is the focuses on the research literature and analyzed using an analytical descriptive study to strengthen the existing theory. The conclusion this thesis is the minutes of a general meeting of shareholders by Notary which made against Article of Association and Company Law 40 2007 is invalid by law and the legal implication is not only to the minutes itself but also the company, shareholders, and Notary. So, all parts of the company and Notary need yo understand well about all the clauses in the Article of Association and Company Law 40 2007.