Suchergebnisse

This paper examines Decision Number 1033 B/Pdt.Sus-Arbt/2020 dated September 14, 2020 regarding a dispute over the cancellation of the arbitration award regarding the unilateral termination of the Legal Consultant Service Agreement for Appealing Surface Water Tax in the Tax Court between PT. Indonesia Asahahan Aluminum (Persero) as Defendant II with the Three Law Offices as Plaintiffs. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the Supreme Court's decision related to alleged criminal acts of deception and falsification of documents used in filing the cancellation of the arbitral award was in accordance with Law Number 30 of 1999 concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution. The results of the study indicate that the alleged crime of deceit and forgery of documents used in filing a lawsuit for the cancellation of the arbitral award (Analysis of Decision Number 1033 B/PDt.Sus-Arbt/2020) in its application is correct. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the Supreme Court's decision related to alleged criminal acts of deception and falsification of documents used in filing the cancellation of the arbitral award was in accordance with Law Number 30 of 1999 concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution. The research method used is a normative juridical method with an approach to relevant legislation and the object of study is the Supreme Court Decision Number 1033 B/Pdt.Sus-Arbt/2020 which is supported by secondary legal materials in the form of books, journals and other sources. The results of the study indicate that the alleged crime of deceit and forgery of documents used in filing a lawsuit for the cancellation of the arbitral award (Analysis of Decision Number 1033 B/PDt.Sus-Arbt/2020) in its application is correct. The Panel of Judges in their legal consideration of Decision Number 69/Pdt.G/2019/PN.Kis regarding article 70 of Law Number 30 of 1999 concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution only applies the argument of a ruse carried out by Defendant II but based on evidence- the evidence submitted by the plaintiff at the trial Plaintiff could not prove that Defendant II had done a trick so that the other arguments of the plaintiff were set aside and not considered. As stipulated in Article 72 paragraph (4) of Law Number 30 of 1999 concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution, it is regulated that the decision of the District Court can be appealed to the Supreme Court, but in the explanation of Article 72 paragraph (4) it is explained that what is meant by appeal is only against the decision to cancel the arbitration so that against the decision of the District Court which rejects the request for the cancellation of the arbitration award, there is no legal remedy available. Whereas the judex facti filed for an appeal in the a quo case is not in the form of annulment of the arbitration award but the cancellation of the decision of the District Court, therefore the appeal must be declared unacceptable.Keywords:Cancellation of Arbitration Award, Alleged Crime, Deception and Counterfeiting Document.