ABSTRAKPada kasus Putusan No. 68/Pailit/2010/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst tanggal 1 November 2010
oleh Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta Pusat, PT. Texplastindo Kemas Industry melakukan Perjanjian
Kredit dengan Bank BNI, namun ternyata Objek Jaminan Fidusia Perjanjian Kredit tersebut
ternyata disewakan kepada PT. Inti Abadi Karya tanpa sepengetahuan Bank BNI. Sehingga
timbul permasalahan bagaimana status hukum objek jaminan fidusia Bank BNI dalam
kepailitan PT. Texplastindo Kemas Industry, serta Bagaimana upaya hukum yang dapat
dilakukan oleh Bank BNI terhadap objek jaminan fidusianya tersebut. Dengan kesimpulan :
Pertama, status hukum objek jaminan fidusia adalah Bank BNI tetap berstatus jaminan atas
hutang PT. Texplastindo Kemas Industry dengan hak yang diutamakan daripada hak krediturkreditur
lainnya, namun didalamnya terdapat pula hak pengembalian harga sewa yang sudah
dibayarkan namun belum dinikmati oleh PT. Inti Abadi Karya. Kedua, upaya hukum Bank
BNI adalah mendaftarkan hutang dengan mencantumkan hak istimewanya (jaminan fidusia),
untuk kemudian melakukan eksekusi sebagaimana layaknya tidak terjadi kepailitan (sebagai
kreditur separatis), dan melaporkan debitur atas pelanggaran Pasal 36 Undang-Undang
Jaminan Fidusia No. 42 tahun 1999, serta pengajuan sebagai kreditur konkuren dalam hal
jumlah hutang lebih besar nilainya daripada nilai objek jaminan fidusianya. Saran didalam
penelitian ini adalah harus adanya harmonisasi Undang-Undang Jaminan Fidusia dengan
Undang-Undang Kepailitan, serta efektifitas instansi pelaksana eksekusi jaminan.
Abstract At the Ba;nkruptcy case of Decision No. 68/Pailit/2010/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst dated
November 1, 2010, by the Commercial Court of Central Jakarta, in which PT. Texplastindo
Kemas Industry entered into Loan Agreement with Bank BNI, however, it turned out that the
Object of the Fiduciary Security in order to secure the Loan Agreement has been leased to
PT. Inti Abadi Karya without the consent of Bank BNI. Therefore, the issues in this research
are regarding the legal status of the object of fiduciary security of Bank BNI in the
bankruptcy of PT. Texplastindo Kemas Industry, and what are the legal efforts which can be
taken by Bank BNI against the object of its fiduciary security. With the conclusion: Firstly,
the legal status of object of fiduciary security remains under the entitlement of Bank BNI as
the beneficiary of fiduciary securities of PT. Texplastindo Kemas Industry as the collateral of
the debt of PT. Texplastindo Kemas Industry with the right of preference over other creditors,
however, in it there is also the right over the recovery of rental which has been paid that has
not yet been enjoyed by PT. Inti Abadi Karya. Secondly, the legal effort of Bank BNI is to
register the debt by stating its right of preference (fiduciary security), to be then executed
accordingly in the case of bankruptcy (as creditor with preferred right), and report the debtor
for the violation of Article 36 of Fiduciary Security Law No. 42 of the year 1999, as well as
the filing of petition as concurrent creditor in the event that the amount of the debt is greater
than the value of the object of the fiduciary security. Advices in this research are that there
should be a harmony between the Fiduciary Security Law and the Bankruptcy Law, as well as
there should be effective institution as the executor of the security.
