Court Decree No.: 362/Pdt.G/2022/Pn Jkt. Sel (District Court) and 1025/PDT/2023/PT DKI (High Court)
One of the banks in Jakarta is facing a legal issue where a debtor challenges the validity of the security document for a significant loan. The debtor filed a lawsuit, claiming the bank violated the law, seeking to declare the loan agreement null and void, and demanding compensation.
In this case, we represented the bank from the District Court to the Supreme Court. At the Supreme Court, we successfully defended the bank’s interests, with the court upholding the validity of the loan agreement and the security documents.
A bank provided a loan secured by a mortgage, documented through legally prepared agreements.
The plaintiff challenged the agreements, alleging procedural flaws, claiming the power of attorney to impose the mortgage was invalid as it lacked the direct signature of the collateral owner
Incomplete Information
Some parties have passed away, making the facts shown in the proceeding only one-sidedly from the plaintiff. Gathering complete and accurate facts becomes more challenging.
Questionable Validity
The layered power of attorney to impose the mortgage violates the law, undermining the validity of the security documents despite the plaintiff's prior agreement and approval of the loan and mortgage.
Can the validity of security documents be defended when procedural flaws and allegations of legal violations are raised?
How does incomplete information from deceased parties impact the defense of the case?
Legally Compliant Agreements
The bank followed legal procedures in preparing the loan and security documents.
Plaintiff's Contradictory Actions Use
Despite prior agreement and approval of the loan and mortgage, the plaintiff challenged the documents, claiming procedural violations.
One-Sided Evidence
The passing away of key parties limited the ability to present balanced evidence, leaving the claims heavily reliant on the plaintiff’s perspective.
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the loan agreement and the security documents, dismissing the plaintiff’s claims.
This decision emphasized that the bank’s actions complied with legal requirements and that procedural flaws alleged by the plaintiff did not invalidate the agreements
Ensure Robust Documentation
Maintain thorough and accurate records, including direct signatures, to prevent similar disputes in the future.
Proactive Risk Management
Address potential legal risks by reviewing powers of attorney to ensure compliance with applicable laws.
Strengthen Legal Defense Strategies
Prepare for cases, involving incomplete information, by leveraging corroborative evidence and focusing on procedural compliance.
The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirms the importance of strong legal compliance and comprehensive documentation. For businesses, such practices safeguard against disputes and uphold trust and stability in financial operations.
If you have questions or encounter a similar case, feel free to contact us for consultation at putranto@putranto-alliance.com or by filling out the form below.
Share to your network
A response to the inquiry will be sent to your email within 2 working days.
putranto@putranto-alliance.com
Jl. Denpasar Raya Blok C4/24
Kompleks Menteri, Kuningan
Jakarta Selatan, 12950, Indonesia
Click the icons for our social media
We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.
