Notary's Carelessness in Making a Deed Resulting in the Deed of Meeting Decision Statement being Invalid (Study of Decision Number 74/Pdt/2021/Pt Btn)
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Notary is one of the public officials who is authorized to make authentic deeds. Notarial Deed as an authentic deed that has perfect evidentiary power. Authentic Deed made by Notary must meet formal and material requirements, as well as the requirements for a valid agreement, if in the case of Notary does not meet one of the requirements then a notarial deed can be declared legally flawed which causes the cancellation or invalidity of the Notarial deed. The focus of this research is the consequences of the Notary's carelessness in making his legal product with a case approach to Decision Number 74 / PDT / 2021 / PT.BTN. This study concludes that LI as a Notary committed a procedural violation in making a deed by not applying the principle of caution, where the deed issued by the Notary, namely the deed of Meeting Decision Statement Number 01 dated October 5, 2015, was declared legally flawed and canceled along with its derivatives, and LI received a sanction in the form of a written warning. The purpose of this writing is to analyze and review the application of the principle of a Notary's prudence in making a Deed of Meeting Decision Statement (PKR) based on the minutes of the General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS) in the High Court Decision Number 74/PDT/2021/PT BTN. The method used is normative legal research with a case and statutory approach.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
License Terms
All articles published in Equality: Journal of Law and Justice are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0).
User Rights
Under this license, users are permitted to:
- Read and access the content freely
- Download and copy the material in any medium or format
- Distribute and share the work
- Adapt, remix, transform, and build upon the material
- Use the work for commercial and non-commercial purposes
Conditions
Users must comply with the following terms:
- Attribution — Proper credit must be given to the author(s), a link to the license must be provided, and any changes made must be indicated.
- ShareAlike — Any derivative works must be distributed under the same license (CC BY-SA 4.0).
- No Additional Restrictions — Users may not apply legal or technological measures that restrict others from exercising the rights granted by the license.
Author Rights
- Authors retain copyright and full publishing rights
- Authors grant the journal the right of first publication
- Authors may distribute their work elsewhere with acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal
Journal Rights
- The journal has the right to publish, distribute, and archive the articles
- The journal maintains the integrity of the version of record
Disclaimer
- The journal is not responsible for third-party reuse of the content
- The responsibility for the content lies entirely with the authors
License URL
For full details of the license, please visit:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
References
Afriana, Anita. “Kedudukan Dan Tanggung Jawab Notaris Sebagai Pihak Dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Perdata Di Indonesia Terkait Akta Yang Dibuatnya Position and Responsibility of Notary As a Party To the Resolution of Civil Disputes in Indonesia Relating To the Deed.” Poros Hukum Padjadjaran 1, no. 2 (2020): 246–61. https://doi.org/10.23920/jphp.
Ariesta Rahman, Fikri. “Penerapan Prinsip Kehati-Hatian Notaris Dalam Mengenal Para Penghadap.” Jurnal Lex Renaissance 3, no. 2 (2018): 423–40. https://doi.org/10.20885/jlr.vol3.iss2.art11.
BAMBANG RIANGGONO, SH. “Kekuatan Akta Pernyataan Keputusan Rapat (PKR) Yang Dibuat Berdasrkan Risalah Rapat Dibawah Tangan Ditinju Dari Tanggung Jawab Notaris.” Universitas Diponegoro, 2008.
Harahap, M.Y. Hukum Acara Perdata Tentang Gugatan, Pesidangan, Penyitaan, Pembuktian Dan Putusan Pengadilan. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2008.
Hendra, Rahmad. “Tanggungjawab Notaris Terhadap Akta Otentik Yang Penghadapnya Mempergunakan Identitas Palsu Di Kota Pekanbaru.” Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 3, no. 1 (2013). https://doi.org/10.30652/jih.v3i01.1029.
Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Kencana, 2008.
Mulyadi, Yosi Andika. “Kekuatan Pembuktian Akta Otentik Yang Dibuat Dihadapan Notaris Dalam Perkara Pidana.” Universitas Gadjah Mada Yogyakarta, 2016.
Mustakim, Mustakim. “Kedudukan Risalah Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham (RUPS) Sebagai Akta Otentik Dalam Kaitan Dengan Tanggung Jawab Notaris Sebagai Pejabat Umum.” Kanun Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 18, no. 1 (2016): 159–72.
Okladea Amanda, Bella. “Prinsip Kehati-Hatian Notaris Di Dalam Pembuatan Akta Yang Sempurna.” Recital Review 4, no. 1 (2022): 218–43. https://doi.org/10.22437/rr.v4i1.13815.
Rivanda, Fira Adhisa. “Pelanggaran Pemasangan Papan Nama Notaris Yang Tidak Sesuai Dengan Pelaksanaan Kode Etik Notaris.” Al Qisthas Jurnal Hukum Dan Politik 12, no. 2 (2022): 34–48. https://doi.org/10.37035/alqisthas.v12i2.5057.
Thyawarta, Charlie, and Markoni. “Studi Kasus Pertanggungjawaban Hukum Notaris Dalam Pembuatan Akta Otentik Ditinjau Dari Prinsip Kehati-Hatian.” Jurnal Review Pendidikan Dan Pengajaran 7, no. 976 (2024): 1791–1800.
Zainal, Asikin. Pengantar Tata Hukum Indonesia. Jakarta: Rajawali Press, 2012.