Based on the Notification Letter of the Contents of the Jakarta High Court Verdict No. 622/Pdt/2023/PT.DKI dated 4 October 2023, it is known that in Case No. 622/PDT/2023/PT.DKI dated 16 August 2023, the content of the Decision has been conveyed, which basically confirms the Verdict of the South Jakarta District Court No. 336/Pdt.G/2018/PN.Jkt.Sel dated March 27 2019 which is requested for appeal. Therefore, regarding the appeal verdict in the A quo Case, Eneng IIs Isroriyah through Novian & Partners, filed a cassation legal action according to the time limit and according to the methods as determined by law, for the following reasons:
First, Judex Factie at the Appellate Level, which does not consider legally relevant evidence, is an error in the application of the law because the sale and purchase of the dispute object between the Cassation Petitioner and the Cassation Respondent III was preceded by a Deed of Delivery of Goods in Payment of Debt No. 924/LEG/IX/2016 dated 28 September 2016 which was made unilaterally by Cassation Respondents I and II and signed by the Cassation Petitioner under coercion, pressure and threats.
Second, Judex Factie at the Appellate Level was not careful in applying the law of buying and selling because it justified the practice of pretending to buy and sell. In fact, the Disputed Object was purchased at an unreasonable price by Cassation Respondent III, who is a relative of Cassation Respondents I and II. When the sale and purchase were carried out, the legal facts showed that the Disputed Object remained in the control of Cassation Respondent I. The Cassation Petitioner never saw it. and/or receive payment for the sale and purchase of the Dispute Object.
Third, Judex Factie made a mistake in applying the law regarding the validity of the sale and purchase of Disputed Objects, because it justified the sale and purchase of disputed objects, which was carried out accompanied by unreasonable actions, namely with the Deed of Delivery of Goods as Payment of Debt No. 924/LEG/IX/2016 dated 28 September 2016 which stated that the company owned by the Cassation Petitioner and Cassation Respondent I had a very large debt to the families of Cassation Respondent I and Cassation Respondent II. Even though the Cassation Petitioner did not know about the debt, the nominal amount of the debt was also never clear. The existence of this debt makes the Cassation Petitioner depressed because he continues to be billed by the Cassation Respondent I and the Cassation Respondent II.
Fourth, Judex Factie did not give careful legal consideration to the Deed of Sale and Purchase and to the statements given by witnesses presented by Cassation Respondents I, II, and III, who clearly stated that the witnesses had never seen the Cassation Petitioner sign the debt letter, and the Cassation Petitioner and Cassation Respondent I are known to often quarrel, where the arguments contain threats or pressure from the Cassation Respondent I, thereby proving the pressure experienced by the Cassation Petitioner.
The cassation legal action is currently in the process of being examined at the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia.
