ANALISIS PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG NOMOR 3415 K/PDT/2021 MENGENAI KLAUSULA ARBITRASE PERJANJIAN JUAL BELI SAHAM

ANALYSIS OF SUPREME COURT VERDICT NUMBER 3415 K/PDT/2021 REGARDING ARBITRATION CLAUSE OF SHARE SALE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT

Kokos Jiang, dkk telah menyepakati perjanjian jual beli saham dengan Reliance Coal, dkk. Ditengan berjalan perjanjian, pihak Kokos Jiang menyatakan Reliance Coal tidak membayar uang muka yang sebagaimana dalam perjanjian. Namun, disisi lain pihak Kokos Jiang telah wanprestasi terhadap Agreement for Advances yang dibuktikan dengan adanya putusan SIAC dan wajib membayar 43,2 juta dolar kepada Reliance Power Netherland BV beserta bunga. Perjanjian yang disepakati hanya menggunakan Bahasa Inggris, dimana hal tersebut dirasanya telah melanggar ketentuan Pasal 31 ayat (1) UU No. 24/2009. Atas dasar kejadian itu, Kokos Jiang, dkk mengajukan gugatan di Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat dengan dasar perbuatan melawan hukum. Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat sampai dengan Pengadilan Tinggi DKI Jakarta memiliki pendapat yang sama dan memutus mengabulkan sebagian gugatan tersebut. Selanjutnya, Reliance Coal, dkk mengajukan kasasi, Mahkamah Agung memenangkan kasasi para tergugat dengan membatalkan Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi DKI Jakarta Nomor 575/PDT/2020/PT DKI serta menyatakan bahwa pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat tidak memiliki kewenangan untuk memeriksa dan mengadili perkara tersebut. Dengan tujuan untuk menganalisa dan mengetahui dasar pertimbangan majelis hakim dalam memutus Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 3415 K/Pdt/2021 serta menganalisa dan mengetahui konsekuensi hukum dari penerapan putusan tersebut. Penelitian menggunakan metode penelitian normatif, menggunakan teknik analisis preskriptif. Penelitian menganalisis dasar pertimbangan yang digunakan oleh Mahkamah Agung bahwa perjanjian arbtrase memberikan kewenangan absolut badan arbitrase dalam menyelesaikan sengketa dan bahasa (Pasal 31 UU No. 24/2009) bukan merupakan faktor utama yang dapat membatalkan perjanjian. Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 3415 K/Pdt/2021 mengakibatkan berubah keadaan hukum kembali pada saat perjanjian-perjanjian yang telah disepakati dan melaksanakan putusan arbitrase SIAC. Kata kunci: Perjanjian, Arbitrase, Bahasa. 

Kokos Jiang, et al. have agreed to a share sale and purchase agreement with Reliance Coal, et al. In the middle of the agreement, Kokos Jiang stated that Reliance Coal did not pay the down payment as stated in the agreement. However, on the other hand, Kokos Jiang has defaulted on the Agreement for Advances as evidenced by the SIAC decision and is required to pay 43.2 million dollars to Reliance Power Netherland BV along with interest. The agreed agreement only uses English, which is considered to have violated the provisions of Article 31 paragraph (1) of Law Number 24/2009. Based on this incident, Kokos Jiang, et al. filed a lawsuit at the Central Jakarta District Court based on an unlawful act. The Central Jakarta District Court to the DKI Jakarta High Court have the same opinion and decided to grant part of the lawsuit. Next, Reliance Coal, et al. filed an appeal, the Supreme Court won the defendants' appeal by annulling the DKI Jakarta High Court Verdict Number 575/PDT/2020/PT DKI and stated that the Central Jakarta District Court did not have the authority to examine and try the case. To analyze and know the basis for the panel of judges' considerations in deciding the Supreme Court Verdict Number 3415 K/Pdt/2021 and analyze and know the legal consequences of implementing the decision. Using a normative research method, with a research approach of a statutory approach, a case approach, and a conceptual approach, and using prescriptive analysis techniques. The study analyzes the basis for consideration used by the Supreme Court that the arbitration agreement provides absolute authority for the arbitration body to resolve disputes and language (Article 31 of Law Number 24/2009) is not the main factor that can cancel the agreement. Supreme Court Verdict Number 3415 K/Pdt/2021 resulted in a change in the legal situation again at the time of the agreements that had been agreed upon and implementing the SIAC arbitration decision. Keywords: Agreement, Arbitration, Language.