Reformulation of Commercial Court Authority Regulations Relation to the Arbitration Clause

Huzaimah Al-Anshori, Emi Puasa Handayani, Gautam Kumar Jha
{"title":"Reformulation of Commercial Court Authority Regulations Relation to the Arbitration Clause","authors":"Huzaimah Al-Anshori, Emi Puasa Handayani, Gautam Kumar Jha","doi":"10.15294/jllr.vol5i1.2144","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The issue of jurisdiction in dispute resolution within the Commercial Court arises when the contract designates an arbitration clause as the preferred mechanism for resolving disputes. In the contractual agreement between PT. Swadaya Graha and PT. Rayon Utama Makmur (RUM), the chosen forum for dispute resolution is stipulated to be the National Arbitration Board (BANI). However, concurrently, there is a proposal for dispute resolution within the Commercial Court framework concerning defaulted debt and receivable disputes in PKPU case number 45/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2020/PN Niaga Smg. This has engendered a legal debate centring on the application of the \"lex specialist derogat legi general\" principle among the Arbitration Law, the Bankruptcy Law, and PKPU, with regard to the absolute jurisdiction of institutions authorized to examine, decide, and adjudicate incidents of defaulted debt and receivable disputes within the legal relationship between the PKPU Petitioner and the Respondent. The PKPU process is structured within a contract that includes an arbitration clause as the designated dispute resolution mechanism. Given the complications and hurdles posed by these issues, there is a pressing need for legal certainty in the future. Furthermore, there has been a conflict of norms between the Arbitration Law the Bankruptcy Law and PKPU, as evidenced in PKPU case number 45/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2020/PN Niaga Smg. Hence, a reformulation of the Bankruptcy Law and PKPU regulations is essential to harmonize them with evolving norms and address emerging issues. A vital aspect of this reformulation involves the potential removal or replacement of Article 303 of the Bankruptcy Law and PKPU.","PeriodicalId":33754,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Legal Reform","volume":"352 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and Legal Reform","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15294/jllr.vol5i1.2144","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The issue of jurisdiction in dispute resolution within the Commercial Court arises when the contract designates an arbitration clause as the preferred mechanism for resolving disputes. In the contractual agreement between PT. Swadaya Graha and PT. Rayon Utama Makmur (RUM), the chosen forum for dispute resolution is stipulated to be the National Arbitration Board (BANI). However, concurrently, there is a proposal for dispute resolution within the Commercial Court framework concerning defaulted debt and receivable disputes in PKPU case number 45/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2020/PN Niaga Smg. This has engendered a legal debate centring on the application of the "lex specialist derogat legi general" principle among the Arbitration Law, the Bankruptcy Law, and PKPU, with regard to the absolute jurisdiction of institutions authorized to examine, decide, and adjudicate incidents of defaulted debt and receivable disputes within the legal relationship between the PKPU Petitioner and the Respondent. The PKPU process is structured within a contract that includes an arbitration clause as the designated dispute resolution mechanism. Given the complications and hurdles posed by these issues, there is a pressing need for legal certainty in the future. Furthermore, there has been a conflict of norms between the Arbitration Law the Bankruptcy Law and PKPU, as evidenced in PKPU case number 45/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2020/PN Niaga Smg. Hence, a reformulation of the Bankruptcy Law and PKPU regulations is essential to harmonize them with evolving norms and address emerging issues. A vital aspect of this reformulation involves the potential removal or replacement of Article 303 of the Bankruptcy Law and PKPU.
重新制定与仲裁条款有关的商事法院权限条例
当合同指定仲裁条款作为解决争议的首选机制时,就会出现商事法院在争议解决中的管辖权问题。在 PT.Swadaya Graha 和 PT.Rayon Utama Makmur (RUM)之间的合同协议中,选择的争议解决机构是国家仲裁委员会(BANI)。然而,与此同时,也有人提议在商业法院框架内解决有关拖欠债务和应收账款纠纷的争议,案件编号为 45/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2020/PN Niaga Smg。这引发了一场法律争论,争论的焦点是《仲裁法》、《破产法》和PKPU之间 "lex specialist derogat legi general "原则的适用问题,即在PKPU申请人和被申请人之间的法律关系中,受权审查、决定和裁决拖欠债务和应收账款纠纷事件的机构的绝对管辖权问题。PKPU 程序是在包括仲裁条款的合同内构建的,仲裁条款是指定的争议解决机制。鉴于这些问题带来的复杂性和障碍,今后迫切需要法律的确定性。此外,正如第 45/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2020/PN Niaga Smg 号 PKPU 案件所示,《仲裁法》、《破产法》和 PKPU 之间存在规范冲突。因此,重新制定《破产法》和 PKPU 条例对于使其与不断发展的规范相协调和解决新出现的问题至关重要。重新制定的一个重要方面是可能删除或替换《破产法》第303条和PKPU。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信