Article Sidebar

Submitted
December 8, 2025
Accepted
January 2, 2026
Published
January 2, 2026
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 4 Download : 0

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the position and validity of convening an extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders (EGMS) by parties who have not yet obtained legal legitimacy as lawful shareholders, with a case study of Decision Cahaya Mulia Persada Nusa Limited Liability Company. The reseacrh examines the legal status of the EGMS organizers and the legal implications of the resolutions adopted without legitimate share ownership. This study applies a normative juridical method using statutory, dotrinal, and case approaches. Data were obtained through library research and analyzed descriptively and qualitatively to interpret the legal norms contained in the company law. The findings indicate that the EGMS held by parties without legitimate shareolder status violates the principle og legality and may lead to the nullification of its resolution. The unclear legal status of the organizers results in legak uncertainty and may harm both the company and other legitimate shareholders. Fulfilling formal and material requirements in the conduct of shareholders mettings, particulary regarding the legitimacy of shareholders as legal subjects, is a crucial element in ensuring legal protection and corporate admiistrative order. This study emphasizes the importance of strengthening normative provisions and verification mechanisms in the implementation of EGMS to ensure legal certainty and the application of good corporate governance principles.

Keywords

Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders legal legitimacy legal certainty shareholder dispute

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Ilham Amrulloh

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

How to Cite
Amrulloh, I. (2026). The Validity of the Position and Implementation of the Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders by Parties Who Have Not Obtained Legal Legitimacy as Shareholders (Case Study of Cahaya Mulia Persada Nusa Limited Liability Company). Journal of Private and Commercial Law, 2(1), 113–136. https://doi.org/10.20885/JPCOL.vol2.iss1.art6
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Abigail Prasetyo, “Kedudukan Organ Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham (RUPS) dalam Badan Hukum Perseroan Terbatas”, Jurnal Jurist-Diction, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023.

  2. Adinda Ofi Salsabila Putri, Anandyta Putri Wardhana, and Arvina Pradita Mufidatul Khusnah. “Implikasi Hukum Bagi Perseroan yang Mengabaikan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham.” Jurnal Hukum, Pendidikan Dan Sosial Humaniora, Vol. 2, No. 1, 14, Desember, 2024.

  3. Anak Agung Gde Ramanda Bradjawangsa Djelantik dan Putu Devi Yustisia Utami, Kedudukan Hukum terhadap Keputusan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham (RUPS) dengan Kepemilikan Saham Berimbang pada Perseroan Terbatas”, Jurnal Media Akademik (JMA), Vol. 2, No. 12, Desember, 2024.

  4. Article 50 of Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies.

  5. Article 52 of Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies.

  6. Article 75 of Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies.

  7. Article 76 of Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies.

  8. Article 78 paragraph (4) of Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies.

  9. Article 79 paragraph (1) of Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies.

  10. Article 79 paragraph (3) of Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies.

  11. Article 80 of Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies.

  12. Article 80 paragraph (1) of Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies.

  13. Article 80 paragraph (2) of Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies.

  14. Article 82 of Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies.

  15. Article 86 of Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies.

  16. Article 91 of Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies.

  17. Bantul District Court Decision No. 106/PDT.G/2023/PN. Btl.

  18. Bernard Nainggolan, Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Pemegang Saham Minoritas dalam Perusahaan Terbuka, Publika Global Media, Yogyakarta, 2022.

  19. C.S.T Kansil, Pokok-pokok Hukum Perseroan Terbatas, Pustaka Sinar Harapan, Jakarta 1996.

  20. Civil Law Book

  21. Idris Saputra, Jumiati Ukkas, and Udiyo Basuki, “Akibat Hukum Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham (RUPS) terhadap Direksi,” Halu Oleo Law Review, Vol. 8, No. 1, March, 2024. https://holrev.uho.ac.id/index.php/journal/article/view/112/31, diakses pada tanggal 20 Juni 2025 pada pukul 19.33 WIB.

  22. Julio Omega Sakti, Dian Bakti Setiawan, and Yussy Adelina Mannas, “Keabsahan Akta Berita Acara Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham (RUPS) tentang Perubahan Anggaran Dasar dalam Keterlambatan Pemberitahuan oleh Notaris Kepada Kementerian Hukum Republik Indonesia,” UNNES LAW REVIEW, Vol. 7, No. 3 ,March, 2025.

  23. Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies.

  24. Lestari Wahyuni, “Prinsip Good Governance Governance dalam Penyelenggaraan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham Luar Biasa”, Jurnal Hukum Bisnis Bonum Commune, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021.

  25. Man S Sastrawijaya dan Rai Mantili, Perseroan Terbatas Menurut Tiga Undang-Undang, Alumni, Bandung, 2008.

  26. Munir Fuady, Perseroan Terbatas Paradigma Baru, Citra Aditya Bakti, Bandung, 2019.

  27. Nurullia and Irawaty, “Keabsahan Surat Kuasa dan Prosedur RUPSLB pada Masa Kekosongan Jabatan Direksi terhadap Ratifikasi Tindakan Mantan Direksi: Analisis Putusan Nomor 575/PDT/2023/PT SBY,” Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Humaniora dan Politik, Vol. 5, No. 1, November, 2024.

  28. Peter Mahmud Marzuki, Penelitian Hukum, Ctk. 13, Kencana, Jakarta, 2017.

  29. Peter Mahmud, Penelitian Hukum Edisi Revisi, Kencana, Jakarta, 2021.

  30. R. Subekti, Hukum Perjanjian, Intermasa, Jakarta, 2020.

  31. Ridwan Khairandy, Hukum Perusahaan, FH UII Press, Yogyakarta, 2020.

  32. Rosyida Setiani & Siti Nur Intihani, “Perlindungan Hukum terhadap Pemegang Saham yang Tidak Menyetor Modal pada Perseroan Terbatas dalam Perspektif Keadilan”, Veritas: Jurnal Program Pascasarjana Ilmu Hukum, Vol. 7, No. 2, Sepetember, 2021.

  33. Rudhi Prasetya, Kedudukan Mandiri Perseroan Terbatas, Disertai dengan Ulasan Menurut UU No. 1 Tahun 1995 tentang Perseroan Terbatas, Citra Aditya Bhakti, Bandung, 2001.

  34. Rudhi Prasetya, Perseroan Terbatas, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta, 2011.

  35. Sahera Yunita, Ferdi & Misnar Syam, “Pertanggungjawaban Notaris Atas Cacat Prosedur dalam Akta RUPS Luar Biasa”, Jurnal Media of Law and Sharia, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2025.

  36. Soerjono Soekanto dan Sri Mamudji, Penelitian Hukum Normatif: Suatu Tinjauan Singkat, Rajawali Pers, 2001.

  37. Sri Endah Handayani & Sri Lestari Rahayu, “Keabsahan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham Luar Biasa Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas”, Diponegoro Law Journal, Vol. 7, No. 4 2018.

  38. Sudikmo Mertokusumo, Hukum Acara Perdata Indonesia, Ctk. 8, Liberty, Yogyakarta, 2009.

  39. Sudikmo Mertokusumo, Hukum Acara Perdata Indonesia, Liberty, Yogyakarta, 2013.

  40. Sudikmo Mertokusumo, Penemuan Hukum: Sebuah Pengantar. Liberty, Yogyakarta, 2009.

  41. Surahman, Muhamad et al, “Analisis Peran Notaris dan Keabsahan Akta RUPS yang Dilakukan Melalui Media Telekoferensi,” Jurnal Hukum, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2023.

  42. Syarifah Hasna Ritonga, M. Yamin. Zaidar & Suprayitno, “Implementasi Asas Nemo Plus Juris terkait Perbuatan Hukum Atas Tanah di Hadapan PPAT (Studi Kasus Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 2678 K/PDT/2015)”, Journal of Law & Policy Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, Desember, 2023.

  43. Tim Buku Pedoman Penulisan Tugas Akhir, Pedoman Penulisan Tugas Akhir Mahasiswa Program Studi Hukum Program Sarjana (PSHPS), Ctk. Pertama, Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta, 2020.

  44. Yahya Harahap, Hukum Acara Perdata tentang Gugatan, Persidangan, Penyitaan, Pembuktian, dan Putusan Pengadilan, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta, 2015.

  45. Yahya Harahap, Hukum Perseroan Terbatas, Ctk. Terbaru, Sinar Garfika, Jakarta, 2021.

  46. Yogyakarta High Court Decision No. 84/PDT/2024/PT. Yyk.