Ditemukan 178 data

Urut Berdasarkan
 
Register : 22-08-2017 — Putus : 12-10-2017 — Upload : 28-12-2017
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 427 K/TUN/2017
Tanggal 12 Oktober 2017 — KEPALA DINAS PENGELOLAAN SUMBER DAYA AIR JAWA TENGAH VS NY. PUANAH, DKK., DAN KEPALA KANTOR PERTANAHAN KOTA SEMARANG;
49246 Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
  • Lalu batas letaktanah PSDA yang masuk wilayah Kauman MangkangKulon Kecamatan Tugu Kota Semarang adalah sebelahbarat perkampungan, sebelah utara rel kereta api, sebelahselatan adalah jalan Desa Tegal Lirik (nama Jalan KyaiGilang II), sebelah timur juga saluran/irigasi;6.3.2 Sementara itu posisi antara tanah milik Nyonya Puanah(Para Penggugat) dengan tanah milik Dinas PSDA (baikyang di wilayah Wonosari maupun Mangkang Kulon) kuranglebin berjarak 300 m, dengan demikian tanah yangdisertipikatkan hak
    atasnama Pemerintah Provinsi Daerah Tingkat Jawa Tengah Cq DinasPekerjaan Umum;Bahwa dalil Para Penggugat posita 6.3.2 yang intinya menyebutkantanah milik Para Penggugat dan tanah milik PSDA berjarak + 300 m,dan dikaitkan dengan surat dari Pemerintah Kota Semarang Nomor590/22/VIII/2012 tanggal 4 Oktober 2012 telah dijelaskan bahwa tanahmilik Para Penggugat masihn C Desa, sedangkan milik Tergugat IlIntervensi sudah bersertipikat Hak Pakai Nomor 12 Desa MangkangKulon, Kelurahan Mangkang Kulon, Kecamatan
Putus : 24-02-2011 — Upload : 18-10-2011
Putusan PTUN PEKAN BARU Nomor 67/G/2010/PTUN-PBR
Tanggal 24 Februari 2011 — H. ASMARA VS BUPATI BENGKALIS
7522
  • Bengkalis ;6.3.2.
    Bahwa dalil Penggugat pada point 6.3dengan sub item (6.3.1 dan 6.3.2) adalahbenar sepanjang Penggugat menyebut danmengutip pasal pasal yang terdapat padaPeraturan Daerah Kab.
Register : 23-06-2016 — Putus : 19-10-2016 — Upload : 26-10-2016
Putusan PT JAKARTA Nomor 401/PDT/2016/PT.DKI
Tanggal 19 Oktober 2016 — PT.MODACO ENERSYS >< PT.PLN (PERSERO) CS
162112
  • Lapisan tanah sangat lunak cukup tebal dari muka tanahsampai kedalaman 26 m ;6.3.2. Lapisan tanah dari muka tanah sampai 60 m merupakanHalaman 4 dari 16 hal. Putusan Nomor 401/PDT/2016/PT. DKI6.4.6.5.6.6.lapisan lempung abuabu;6.3.3. Tidak ditemukan lapisan tanah keras;6.3.4. Daya dukung Vertikal, Horizontal sangat rendah serta sangatmempunyai potensi penurunan konsolidasi yang sangat besar;6.3.5.
Putus : 08-11-2017 — Upload : 28-12-2017
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 1832/B/PK/PJK/2017
Tanggal 8 Nopember 2017 — BUT. CNOOC SES, LTD VS DIREKTUR JENDERAL PAJAK
9961 Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
  • Ketentuan dalam Pasal 15.4.1 PSC versi terbarutersebut berbunyi sebagai berikut (Bukti PK9):Halaman 43 dari 68 halaman Putusan Nomor 1832/B/PK/PJK/2017BPMIGAS and CONTRACTOR agree that all of the percentagesappearing in SubSections 6.2.3 and 6.3.2 of Section VI of thisCONTRACT have been determined on the assumption thatCONTRACTOR is subject to final tax on profits after tax deductionunder Article 26 (4) of the Indonesia Income tax Law and is notsheltered by any Tax Treaty to which the Government
    In the event that, subsequently,CONTRACTOR or any of Participating Interest Holder(s) comprisingCONTRACTOR under this CONTRACT becomes not subject to finaltax deduction under Article 26 (4) of the Indonesia Income tax Lawand/or subject to a Tax Treaty, all of the percentages appearing inSubSections 6.2.3 and 6.3.2 of Section VI of this CONTRACT, asapplicable to the portions of CONTRACTOR and BPMIGAS soaffected by the non applicability of such final tax deduction or theapplicability of a Tax Treaty
    Ketentuan dalam Pasal15.4.1 PSC tersebut berbunyi sebagai berikut (Bukti PK9):BPMIGAS and CONTRACTOR agree that all of the percentagesappearing in SubSections 6.2.3 and 6.3.2 of Section VI of thisCONTRACT have been determined on the assumption thatCONTRACTOR is subject to final tax on profits after tax deduction underArticle 26 (4) of the Indonesia Income tax Law and is not sheltered by anyTax Treaty to which the Government of the Republic of Indonesia hasbecome a party.
    In the event that, subsequently, CONTRACTOR or any ofParticipating Interest Holder(s) comprising CONTRACTOR under thisCONTRACT becomes not subject to final tax deduction under Article 26(4) of the Indonesia Income tax Law and/or subject to a Tax Treaty, all ofthe percentages appearing in SubSections 6.2.3 and 6.3.2 of Section VIof this CONTRACT, as applicable to the portions of CONTRACTOR andBPMIGAS so affected by the non applicability of such final tax deduction orthe applicability of a Tax Treaty
Register : 27-04-2015 — Putus : 23-06-2015 — Upload : 11-08-2015
Putusan PA PEKANBARU Nomor 620/Pdt.G/2015/PA.Pbr
Tanggal 23 Juni 2015 — Penggugat I,Penggugat II,Penggugat III,Penggugat IV,Penggugat V,Penggugat VI,Penggugat VII,Penggugat VIII,Penggugat IX,Penggugat X vs Tergugat I,Tergugat II,Tergugat III,Tergugat IV,Tergugat V,Tergugat VI
5214
  • Zulham Effendi bin Amril Hasan (lakilaki);6.3.2. Hendra Effendi bin Amril Hasan (lakilaki);6.3.3. Aprinal Effendi binAmril Hasan (lakilaki);6.3.4. Elsa Fitri Ramadhani binti Amril Hasan (perempuan);6.3.5.
Register : 24-05-2013 — Putus : 16-07-2013 — Upload : 16-07-2013
Putusan PA CILEGON Nomor 171/Pdt.P/2013/PA.Clg.,
Tanggal 16 Juli 2013 — Pemohon I, Pemohon II, Pemohon III
5022
  • Haryudi (lakilaki, lahir di Jakarta 25 September1963).6.3.2. Hendrayana (lakilaki, lahir di Jakarta 15 Januari1966).6.3.3. Lies Sulistiyasari ( perempuan, lahir di Jakarta 14Juli 1968).6.3.4. Adin Haryadinata (lakilaki, lahir di Jakarta 2 April1975).6.3.5. Ade Suhartiningrum (perempuan, lahir di Jakarta 30September 1976).6.3.6. Lisa Megasari ( perempuan, lahir di di Jakarta 15Juni 1979),6.4.
Putus : 30-04-2010 — Upload : 13-09-2011
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 39 K/AG/2010
Tanggal 30 April 2010 — PATMAWATI binti TAGGIK VS BAWON binti SOLTEM
3419 Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
  • . =2/3x harta bawaan (poin 5.1) + radd = 70,83%;6.3.2. =2/3x Y2 harta bersama (poin 5.2) + radd = 35,42%;Hal. 16 dari 18 hal. Put. No. 39 K/AG/20107. Menghukum Tergugat untuk menyerahkan kepada Penggugat, turutTergugat dan II bahagian yang menjadi hak masingmasing sebagaimanatersebut pada diktum angka 6.2 dan 6.3 putusan ini;8. Menghukum Tergugat membayar uang paksa Rp 1.000.000, (satu jutarupiah) perhari setiap kali Tergugat lalai dalam melaksanakan isi putusan ini;9.
Putus : 08-11-2017 — Upload : 28-12-2017
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 1828 B/PK/PJK/2017
Tanggal 8 Nopember 2017 — BUT. CNOOC SES, LTD VS DIREKTUR JENDERAL PAJAK
279241 Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
  • Ketentuan dalam Pasal 15.4.1 PSC versi terbarutersebut berbunyi sebagai berikut (Bukti PK9):BPMIGAS and CONTRACTOR agree that all of the percentagesappearing in Subsections 6.2.3 and 6.3.2 of Section VI of thisCONTRACT have been determined on the assumption thatCONTRACTOR is subject to final tax on profits after tax deductionunder Article 26 (4) of the Indonesia Income Tax Law and is notsheltered by any Tax Treaty to which the Government of the Republicof Indonesia has become a party.
    In the event that, subsequently,CONTRACTOR or any of Participating Interest Holder(s) comprisingCONTRACTOR under this CONTRACT becomes not subject to finaltax deduction under Article 26 (4) of the Indonesia Income Tax Lawand/or subject to a Tax Treaty, all of the percentages appearing inSubsections 6.2.3 and 6.3.2 of Section VI of this CONTRACT, asapplicable to the portions of CONTRACTOR and BPMIGAS soaffected by the non applicability of such final tax deduction or theapplicability of a Tax Treaty
    Ketentuan dalam Pasal15.4.1 PSC tersebut berbunyi sebagai berikut (Bukti PK9):BPMIGAS and CONTRACTOR agree that all of the percentagesappearing in Subsections 6.2.3 and 6.3.2 of Section VI of thisCONTRACT have been determined on the assumption thatCONTRACTOR is subject to final tax on profits after tax deduction underArticle 26 (4) of the Indonesia Income Tax Law and is not sheltered by anyTax Treaty to which the Government of the Republic of Indonesia hasbecome a party.
    In the event that, subsequently, CONTRACTOR or any ofParticipating Interest Holder(s) comprising CONTRACTOR under thisCONTRACT becomes not subject to final tax deduction under Article 26(4) of the Indonesia Income Tax Law and/or subject to a Tax Treaty, all ofthe percentages appearing in Subsections 6.2.3 and 6.3.2 of Section VI ofthis CONTRACT, as applicable to the portions of CONTRACTOR andBPMIGAS so affected by the non applicability of such final tax deduction orthe applicability of a Tax Treaty
Register : 22-02-2019 — Putus : 25-04-2019 — Upload : 25-04-2019
Putusan PA MAKASSAR Nomor 559/Pdt.G/2019/PA.Mks
Tanggal 25 April 2019 — Penggugat melawan Tergugat
916
  • Bahwa Pemohon mengakui dekat dengan FULANAdan menjalin hubungan.6.3.2. Bahwa pada saat orang tua menyampaikan untukmemilin perempuan itu) atau. Termohon. Pemohonmenyampaikan bahwa tidak mau meninggalkan FULANA.6.3.3. Bahwa setelah pulang dari Minasa Upa, Pemohonmenyampaikan kepada Termohon akan menginap dan tinggalbersama orang tua untuk membahagiakan orang tua sehinggaPemohon menyiapkan pakaiannya. Dan ternyata Pemohonjarang dirumah orang tua Pemohon.7.
Putus : 14-01-2013 — Upload : 12-07-2013
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 488 K/AG/2012
Tanggal 14 Januari 2013 — NY. BERYL CAUSARY SYAMWIL vs ISKANDAR HASAN HAZNAM dkk
80106 Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
  • Hanrozan Haznam (lakilaki);6.3.2. Mahdalisa Haznam (perempuan);6.3.3. Azinul Judi Adrian Haznam (lakilaki);6.4. Madoeretna Haznam, (perempuan) meninggal dunia tanggal 8 April1984. Semasa hidupnya menikah 2 (dua) kali. Pertama kali denganMoch. Amin pada tanggal 11 Oktober 1951 di Jakarta dan kemudianputus karena perceraian pada tanggal 16 September 1957 danmeninggalkan anak:6.4.1. Duardino Indramin (lakilaki);6.4.2. Durando Juniman Sjawali (lakilaki);Hal. 5 dari 18 hal. Put.
Putus : 08-11-2017 — Upload : 28-12-2017
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 1831 B/PK/PJK/2017
Tanggal 8 Nopember 2017 — BUT. CNOOC SES, LTD VS DIREKTUR JENDERAL PAJAK
23291 Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
  • Ketentuan dalam Pasal 15.4.1 PSC versi terbarutersebut berbunyi sebagai berikut (Bukti PK9):BPMIGAS and CONTRACTOR agree that all of the percentagesappearing in SubSections 6.2.3 and 6.3.2 of Section VI of thisCONTRACT have been determined on the assumption thatCONTRACTOR is subject to final tax on profits after tax deductionHalaman 43 dari 68 halaman Putusan Nomor 1831/B/PK/PJK/2017under Article 26 (4) of the Indonesia Income Tax Law and is notsheltered by any Tax Treaty to which the Government
    In the event that, subsequently,CONTRACTOR or any of Participating Interest Holder(s) comprisingCONTRACTOR under this CONTRACT becomes not subject to finaltax deduction under Article 26 (4) of the Indonesia Income Tax Lawand/or subject to a Tax Treaty, all of the percentages appearing inSubSections 6.2.3 and 6.3.2 of Section VI of this CONTRACT, asapplicable to the portions of CONTRACTOR and BPMIGAS soaffected by the non applicability of such final tax deduction or theapplicability of a Tax Treaty
    Ketentuan dalam Pasal15.4.1 PSC tersebut berbunyi sebagai berikut (Bukti PK9):BP MIGAS and CONTRACTOR agree that all of the percentagesappearing in SubSections 6.2.3 and 6.3.2 of Section VI of thisCONTRACT have been determined on the assumption thatCONTRACTOR is subject to final tax on profits after tax deduction underArticle 26 (4) of the Indonesia Income Tax Law and is not sheltered by anyTax Treaty to which the Government of the Republic of Indonesia hasbecome a party.
    In the event that, subsequently, CONTRACTOR or any ofParticipating Interest Holder(s) comprising CONTRACTOR under thisCONTRACT becomes not subject to final tax deduction under Article 26 (4)of the Indonesia Income Tax Law and/or subject to a Tax Treaty, all of theHalaman 52 dari 68 halaman Putusan Nomor 1831/B/PK/PJK/201722.23.percentages appearing in SubSections 6.2.3 and 6.3.2 of Section VI ofthis CONTRACT, as applicable to the portions of CONTRACTOR andBPMIGAS so affected by the non applicability
Putus : 08-11-2017 — Upload : 29-08-2018
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 1830 B/PK/PJK/2017
Tanggal 8 Nopember 2017 — BUT CNOOC SES Ltd vs DIREKTUR JENDERAL PAJAK;
7550 Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
  • Ketentuan dalam Pasal 15.4.1 PSCversi terbaru tersebut berbunyi sebagai berikut (Bukti PK9):BPMIGAS and CONTRACTOR agree that all of the percentagesappearing in SubSections 6.2.3 and 6.3.2 of Section VI of thisCONTRACT have been determined on the assumption thatCONTRACTOR is subject to final tax on profits after tax deductionunder Article 26 (4) of the Indonesia Income Tax Law and is notsheltered by any Tax Treaty to which the Government of the Republicof Indonesia has become a party.
    In the event that, subsequently,CONTRACTOR or any of Participating Interest Holder(s) comprisingCONTRACTOR under this CONTRACT becomes not subject to finaltax deduction under Article 26 (4) of the Indonesia Income Tax Lawand/or subject to a Tax Treaty, all of the percentages appearing inSubSections 6.2.3 and 6.3.2 of Section VI of this CONTRACT, asapplicable to the portions of CONTRACTOR and BPMIGAS soaffected by the non applicability of such final tax deduction or theapplicability of a Tax Treaty
    Ketentuan dalam Pasal15.4.1 PSC tersebut berbunyi sebagai berikut (Bukti PK9):BPMIGAS and CONTRACTOR agree that all of the percentagesappearing in SubSections 6.2.3 and 6.3.2 of Section VI of thisCONTRACT have been determined on the assumption thatCONTRACTOR is subject to final tax on profits after tax deduction underArticle 26 (4) of the Indonesia Income Tax Law and Is not sheltered by anyTax Treaty to which the Government of the Republic of Indonesia hasbecome a party.
    In the event that, subsequently, CONTRACTOR or any ofParticipating Interest Holder(s) comprising CONTRACTOR under thisCONTRACT becomes not subject to final tax deduction under Article 26(4) of the Indonesia Income Tax Law and/or subject to a Tax Treaty, all ofthe percentages appearing in SubSections 6.2.3 and 6.3.2 of Section VIof this CONTRACT, as applicable to the portions of CONTRACTOR andBPMIGAS so affected by the non applicability of such final tax deduction orthe applicability of a Tax Treaty
Putus : 08-11-2017 — Upload : 28-12-2017
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 1829 B/PK/PJK/2017
Tanggal 8 Nopember 2017 — BUT. CNOOC SES, LTD VS DIREKTUR JENDERAL PAJAK
252197 Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
  • Ketentuan dalam Pasal 15.4.1 PSC versi terbarutersebut berbunyi sebagai berikut (Bukti PK9):BPMIGAS and CONTRACTOR agree that all of the percentagesappearing in SubSections 6.2.3 and 6.3.2 of Section VI of thisCONTRACT have been determined on the assumption thatCONTRACTOR is subject to final tax on profits after tax deductionunder Article 26 (4) of the Indonesia Income Tax Law and is notsheltered by any Tax Treaty to which the Government of the Republicof Indonesia has become a party.
    In the event that, subsequently,CONTRACTOR or any of Participating Interest Holder(s) comprisingCONTRACTOR under this CONTRACT becomes not subject to finaltax deduction under Article 26 (4) of the Indonesia Income Tax Lawand/or subject to a Tax Treaty, all of the percentages appearing inSubSections 6.2.3 and 6.3.2 of Section VI of this CONTRACT, asapplicable to the portions of CONTRACTOR and BPMIGAS soaffected by the non applicability of such final tax deduction or theapplicability of a Tax Treaty
    Ketentuan dalam Pasal15.4.1 PSC tersebut berbunyi sebagai berikut (Bukti PK9):BPMIGAS and CONTRACTOR agree that all of the percentagesappearing in SubSections 6.2.3 and 6.3.2 of Section VI of thisCONTRACT have been determined on the assumption thatCONTRACTOR is subject to final tax on profits after tax deduction underArticle 26 (4) of the Indonesia Income Tax Law and is not sheltered by anyTax Treaty to which the Government of the Republic of Indonesia hasbecome a party.
    In the event that, subsequently, CONTRACTOR or any ofParticipating Interest Holder(s) comprising CONTRACTOR under thisCONTRACT becomes not subject to final tax deduction under Article 26 (4)of the Indonesia Income Tax Law and/or subject to a Tax Treaty, all of thepercentages appearing in SubSections 6.2.3 and 6.3.2 of Section VI ofthis CONTRACT, as applicable to the portions of CONTRACTOR andBPMIGAS so affected by the non applicability of such final tax deduction orthe applicability of a Tax Treaty
Register : 02-07-2018 — Putus : 07-11-2018 — Upload : 13-11-2018
Putusan PA TABANAN Nomor 0045/Pdt.G/2018/PA.Tbnan
Tanggal 7 Nopember 2018 — Penggugat melawan Tergugat
9627
  • Rifgi Ananda/Tergugat Il;6.3.2. Nauval Hamdani/Tergugat III;Bahwa berdasarkan hukum faraid dan KHI, bagian hak warismasingmasing ahli waris almarhum Hasan Bukhari adalah:7.1. lbu/almahumah HJ. Asiyah Zaenab, mendapat 1/6 bagian,asal masalah 48, sehingga hak bagiannya menjadi 8/48bagian;7.2. Isteri/Maemanah. S.Ag,/Tergugat I, mendapat 1/8 bagian,asal masalah 48, sehingga hak bagiannya menjadi 6/48bagian;7.3.
Putus : 27-01-2015 — Upload : 11-04-2016
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 52 K/Ag/2015
Tanggal 27 Januari 2015 — INAQ BASARUDIN bin AMAQ MUNAREP; 2. KELEM; , dkk vs 1. HASIMAH binti AMAQ MINAH
3215 Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
  • Candrawati binti Amaq Candra (anak perempuan),meninggal dunia dalam keadaan beragama Hindu untuk ituterhijab untuk mendapatkan warisan;6.3.2. Suminahbinti Amaq Candra, (anak perempuan)memperoleh 1/3 bagian dari bagian Arya, telah meninggaldunia maka bagiannya jatuh kepada ahli warisnya:6.3.2.1.Nursam (Suami) memperoleh 1/4 bagian Suminah;Hal. 22 dari 42 hal. Put. No. 52 K/Ag/20156.4.6.5.6.3.3.6.3.2.2. Nurhayati binti Nursam (anak perempuan)memperoleh 1/3 x 2/3 bagian;6.3.2.3.
    Candrawati binti Amagq Candra (anak perempuan),meninggal dunia dalam keadaan beragama Hindu untukitu terhalang untuk mendapatkan warisan ;6.3.2. Suminah binti Amaq Candra, (anak perempuan)memperoleh 1/3 bagian dari bagian Arya alias AmaqCandra, telah meninggal dunia maka bagiannya jatuhkepada ahli warisnya:Hal. 29 dari 42 hal. Put. No. 52 K/Ag/20156.4.6.5.6.3.3.6.3.2.1. Nursam (Suami) memperoleh 1/4 bagianSuminah;6.3.2.2.
Register : 30-08-2012 — Putus : 20-02-2013 — Upload : 28-01-2014
Putusan PA SOA SIO Nomor 0073/Pdt.G/2012 /PA.SS
Tanggal 20 Februari 2013 — 3 pihak
5116
  • Lakilaki (saudara kandung almarhum) ;PENGGUGAT 1, Perempuan (saudara kandung almarhum) ;PENGGUGAT 2, Perempuan (saudara kandung almarhum) ;Adalah ahli waris dari almarhum ANAK 3 ;1.Meletakkan Sita Jaminan (Conservatoir beslag) atas hartatersebut pada poin 6.2, 6.3.6 dan poin 7.7.1.2 dan 3 ;Menyatakan sita jaminan yang diletakkan tersebut sah danberharga ;Menyatakan seluruh harta kekayaan yang diperoleh selamaperkawinan antara almarhum ANAK 3 dan XXXXX sebagaimanyang tersebut pada poin 6.2, 6.3.1, 6.3.2
    Penggugat juga meminta agarharta brupa sebuah rumah permanen (posita 6.2), juga harta berupa uang duka (posita 6.3.1),Uang Taspen (posita 6.3.2), gaji terusan (posita 6.3.3), uang pensiunan bulanan (posita 6.3.4),premi asuransi (posita 6.3.5), dan perabot rumah tangga (posita 6.3.6) ditetapkan sebagai hartabersama yang diperoleh selama perkawinan almarhum ANAK 3 dan TERGUGAT, kemudianditetapkan bagian Tergugat serta ahli waris lainnya ;Menimbang, bahwa di depan persidangan Tergugat telah memberikan
Putus : 31-03-2015 — Upload : 30-09-2015
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 42/B/PK/Pjk/2015
Tanggal 31 Maret 2015 — DIREKTUR JENDERAL PAJAK VS PT TATA BUMI RAYA
3029 Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
  • Bahwa terdapat pindah buku dari rekening pinjaman sebesarRp175 juta, Ro300 juta dan Rp1,45 milyar;6.3.2. Bahwa setoran tunai yang pada saat keberatan TermohonPeninjauan Kembali belum(semula Pemohon Banding)Halaman 9 dari 17 halaman. Putusan Nomor 42/B/PK/Pjk/2015menunjukkan bukti setoran dan pada saat rekon ditunjukkansetoran senilai Rp400 juta;6.3.3.
Register : 03-03-2021 — Putus : 07-07-2021 — Upload : 12-08-2021
Putusan PA PRAYA Nomor 413/Pdt.G/2021/PA.Pra
Tanggal 7 Juli 2021 — Penggugat:
1.RUSNI ALIAS HJ. RUSNI BINTI H. ABDUL HAMID
2.SADRAN BIN H. ABDUL HAMID
3.SADRI BIN H. ABDUL HAMID
Tergugat:
1.SAHRAM BIN SADRUN
2.HARUN BIN H. ABDUL HAMID
3.SAHRIM BIN H. SAHARUDIN
4.SUHARNI BINTI H. SAHARUDIN
5.KARNIATI ALIAS HJ.KARNIATI BINTI H.SAHARUDIN
6.SITI ZAENAB BINTI H. SAHARUDIN
7.ERWIN SAHRONI BIN SAHRAM
Turut Tergugat:
1.LALU ABDUL HALIK BIN LALU SAHRAM
2.BAIQ SUMARDAYANI BINTI LALU SAHMAR
3.LALU HERMAN PELANI BIN LALU SAHRAM
4.LALU MUHAMAD FARHAN BIN LALU SAHRAM
5.LALU LALIOS HERI BIN LALU SAHRAM
6.MUHAMAD YUNUS BIN SAMIUN
7.AGUS SUJADI BIN SAMIUN
8.MASNAH BINTI SAMIUN
9.SUPARDI BIN SAMIUN
10.ZAENAL ABIDIN BIN SAMIUN
11.MARYAM BINTI SAMAIN
12.JAMIL JAUHARI BIN SAMAIN
13.SITI HADIJAH BINTI SAMAIN
14.JARIYAH BINTI SAMAIN
15.PUJI ASTUTI BINTI SAMAIN
16.LALU SAHMAR BIN MAMIQ SAHMAR
8261
  • Saharudin, sebagai; Turut Tergugat 6.3.2. Sadrun Bin Amaq Samiun, yang telah meninggal dunia sekitar tahun1974, semasa hidupnya menikah dengan Saknah Als Inaq Sahrumdengan status cerai mati dari pernikahannya tersebut dikaruniai anak 1(satu) orang lakilaki yaitu :3.2.1. Sahram Bin Sadrun sebagai Tergugat 1.3.3. Rusni Als Hj. Rusni Binti Amaq Samiun sebagai Penggugat 1.3.4. Sadran Bin Amag Samiun sebagai Penggugat 2.3.5. Sadri Bin Amaq Samiun sebagai Penggugat 3.Hal. 7 dari 20 Hal.
Register : 17-11-2020 — Putus : 03-12-2020 — Upload : 03-12-2020
Putusan MS PROP NAD Nomor 100/Pdt.G/2020/MS.Aceh
Tanggal 3 Desember 2020 — Identitas Pihak Tidak Dipublikasi
12959
  • No. 100/Pdt.G/2020/MS.Aceh= Rp.56.823.467,9443 (lima puluh enam juta delapan ratusdua puluh tiga ribu empat ratus enam puluh tujuh komasembilan ribu empat ratus empat puluh tiga rupiah);;6.3.2. Rahmad Muazir bin Nurian (anak lakilaki dari Saudara lakilaki kandung/Penggugat X) mendapat 1/6 xRp.340.940.807,666 = Rp.56.823.467,9443 (lima puluhenam juta delapan ratus dua puluh tiga ribu empat ratusenam puluh tujuh koma sembilan ribu empat ratus empatpuluh tiga rupiah);;6.3.3.
Register : 08-01-2015 — Putus : 31-03-2015 — Upload : 10-03-2016
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 43 B/PK/PJK/2015
Tanggal 31 Maret 2015 — DIREKTUR JENDERAL PAJAK VS PT. TATA BUMI RAYA;
312 Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
  • Bahwa terdapat pindah buku dari rekening pinjaman sebesarRp175 juta, Rp300 juta dan Rp1,45 milyar;6.3.2. Bahwa setoran tunai yang pada saat keberatan TermohonPeninjauan Kembali (semula Pemohon Banding) belummenunjukkan bukti setoran dan pada saat rekon ditunjukkansetoran senilai Rp400 juta;6.3.3.