Source: https://beta.shariasource.com/search?document_type%5B%5D=18&document_type%5B%5D=19&document_type%5B%5D=39&document_type%5B%5D=20&document_type%5B%5D=21&document_type%5B%5D=22&document_type%5B%5D=35&document_type%5B%5D=36&document_type%5B%5D=34&document_type%5B%5D=23&document_type%5B%5D=37&q=&topic%5B%5D=6
Timestamp: 2019-10-17 23:50:00
Document Index: 478828717

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 49', 'art 55', 'art 6', 'art 8', 'art 49', 'art 55', 'art 6', 'art 8', 'art 49', 'art 55', 'art 11', 'art 18', 'art 62']

Contemporary Primary Sources :: Legislation :: 26 Dhū al-Ḥijja 1350 / 2 May 1932
Iranian Commercial Code
َMain chapters include: 1- Merchant and Commercial Transaction Defined, 2- Commercial Register Books and Commercial Registration Offices, 3- Commercial Companies, 4- Bills of Exchange, Promissory Notes, Checks, 5- Bearer Instruments, 6- Brokerage, 7- Commission Agency, 8- Transportation Contract, 9- Commercial Deputy and Commercial Agents, 10- guaranty, 11- Bankruptcy, 12- Criminal Bankruptcy, 13- Reorganization, 14- Trade Name, 15- Legal Entities, 16- Other Provisions.
Articles 21-93 of this Code, regarding joint stock companies, was repealed and replaced by the Joint Stock Companies Act (1969).
Contemporary Primary Sources :: Legislation :: 27 Dhū al-Ḥijja 1388 / 15 March 1969
Iranian Joint-stock Companies Act
This 'ratified bill' replaced articles 21 to 93 of the Commercial Code pursuant to the legislation enacted on December 10, 1964.
Some significant changes hereby made in the law of joint-stock companies are:
1- Public and private joint-stock companies are distinguished;
2- All directors may, under specified circumstances, be held jointly liable for the acts of any one of them;
3- The fact that directors, in transactions they made with third parties on behalf of the company, have been in breach of the trust or duties delegated to them does not generally excuse the company against third parties from performing those transactions
4- Directors cannot make transactions on their owns’ behalf which involve competition with the company
5- Shares cannot be issued before the company is registered, and bearer shares cannot be issued until all their nominal value be paid by the shareholder.
6- Provisions are introduced on subjects not previously dealt with: executive officer, capital increase and reduction, liquidation, and savings bonds.
Contemporary Primary Sources :: Court Cases :: 8 Shaʿbān 1435 / 5 June 2014
Purbalingga Religious Court Decision No. 311 of 2014: Murabahah Sale-Purchase Agreement
Pengadilan Agama Purbalingga, Posted by ACU Research Staff, 04 September 2015
Pursuant to a murabahah sale-purchase agreement, the defendant had obtained a murabahah loan facility valued at IDR 142,400,000: IDR 80 million in gains, with the bank’s profit margin being IDR 62.4 million. The period of the loan was 60 months, commencing on 21 October 2011 (signing date) and ceasing on 21 October 2016. The defendant was to use the finance to purchase 360 m2 of land in Patemon, Purbalingga. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant had defaulted on the loan, that it had served the defendant with several reminder notices, and that despite providing the defendant with yet another opportunity to make the necessary repayments, the defendant had failed to do so. The plaintiff made several other attempts, such as billing the defendant, sending a reminder, as well as approaching the defendant through his family. The defendant’s inaction forced the plaintiff to lodge an application with the court, pursuant to art 49(i) of Law No. 3 of 2006 on Amendments to Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary, in conjunction with art 55(1) of Law No. 21 of 2008 on Shari’a Banking.
The plaintiff requested that the court secure the defendant’s property against the debt owed, that it declare the original agreement valid, that it find the defendant in breach for default, and that it order the defendant to pay to the plaintiff in material damages IDR 138,456,468.
Despite being summonsed to attend the proceeding, the defendant failed to do so. In the defendant’s absence, the court declared the agreement valid, and ordered the defendant to pay to the plaintiff IDR 138,456,468 in material damages, as well as court costs (IDR 491,000).
Purbalingga Religious Court Decision No. 310 of 2014: Musyarakah Financing Agreement
Pursuant to a musyarakah financing agreement, the plaintiff (bank) and defendants (customers) pooled IDR 20 million and IDR 18.8 million respectively, to fund a coconut and brown sugar enterprise. The term of the agreement was 36 months, from 17 April 2007-17 April 2010. The plaintiff submitted that the defendants went into arrears, causing the plaintiff to serve the defendants with several written warnings. Upon conducting an inspection of the defendants’ management of the enterprise, the plaintiff discovered that the defendants had never shared the profits at the end of each month (as required pursuant to art 6(2) of the agreement), and had failed to return capital to the plaintiff, pursuant to the schedule stipulated in art 8(1) of the agreement. The plaintiff, in lodging an application with the court, pursuant to art 49(i) of Law No. 3 of 2006 on Amendments to Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary, in conjunction with art 55(1) of Law No. 21 of 2008 on Shari’a Banking, sought IDR 53,732,715 in damages, and requested that the court secure this sum against the defendants’ Purbalingga property.
Despite being summonsed to attend the proceeding, the defendants were absent. In their absence, the court declared the agreement valid, and ordered the defendants to pay to the plaintiff IDR 53,732,715 in material damages, as well as court costs (IDR 1,401,000).
Contemporary Primary Sources :: Court Cases :: 26 Shawwāl 1435 / 21 August 2014
Purbalingga Religious Court Decision No. 1040 of 2013: Musyarakah Financing Agreement
Pursuant to a musyarakah financing agreement, in conjunction with an extension addendum, the plaintiff (bank) and defendants (customers) pooled IDR 30 million and IDR 68.7 million respectively, to fund a clothing enterprise based in Purbalingga and marketed in the Jambi area. The term of the agreement was 12 months, from 16 April 2008-16 April 2009. The extension addendum extended the agreement for an additional five months; from 6 April-6 September 2009. The plaintiff submitted that the defendants went into arrears, causing the plaintiff to serve the defendants with several written warnings. Upon conducting an inspection of the defendants’ management of the enterprise, the plaintiff discovered that the defendants had never shared the profits at the end of each month (as required pursuant to art 6(2) of the agreement), and had failed to return capital to the plaintiff pursuant to the schedule stipulated in art 8(1) of the agreement. The plaintiff, in lodging an application with the court, pursuant to art 49(i) of Law No. 3 of 2006 on Amendments to Law No. 7 of 1989 on the Religious Judiciary, in conjunction with art 55(1) of Law No. 21 of 2008 on Shari’a Banking, sought IDR 57,527,652 in damages, and requested that the court secure this sum against the defendants’ two Purbalingga properties.
The court, however, was able to make the parties reconcile. The defendants agreed to fulfil their contractual obligations and the plaintiff agreed to withdraw its application. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs.
Contemporary Primary Sources :: Legislation :: 6 Muḥarram 1420 / 20 April 1999
Indonesian Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection
Presiden Republik Indonesia, Posted by ACU Research Staff, 04 September 2015
This statute regulates consumer protection in Indonesia. Specifically, it legislates with regard to the rights and obligations of consumers and traders, prohibited conduct, standard clauses, responsibilities of traders, development and monitoring, the National Consumer Protection Body (Badan Perlindungan Konsumen Nasional), people's consumer protection bodies, and dispute resolution and related bodies.
Contemporary Primary Sources :: Legislation :: 3 Ṣafar 1420 / 17 May 1999
Indonesian Law No. 23 of 1999 on Bank Indonesia
This statute regulates Indonesia's central bank, Bank Indonesia. It has been amended several times by subsequent legislation.
Contemporary Primary Sources :: Legislation :: 24 Dhū al-Qaʿda 1424 / 15 January 2004
Indonesian Law No. 3 of 2004 on Amendments to Law No. 23 of 1999 on Bank Indonesia
Presiden Republik Indonesia, Posted by ACU Research Staff, 19 August 2015
This statute is the first amendment to Law No. 23 of 1999 on Bank Indonesia, and was drafted to cater for then-recent economic developments, as well as an increasingly integrated and competitive, as well as progressive, financial system.
Contemporary Primary Sources :: Legislation :: 17 Muḥarram 1430 / 13 January 2009
Indonesian Law No. 6 of 2009 on Law Replacement Government Regulation Determination No. 2 of 2008 on Second Amendments to Law 23 of 1999 on Bank Indonesia Becoming Law
This statute was drafted as a result of the Global Financial Crisis of 2008-9, and makes Government Regulation on Replacement Law No. 2 of 2008 a statute in its own right.
Contemporary Primary Sources :: Court Cases :: 13 Shawwāl 1429 / 13 October 2008
Indonesian Government Regulation on Replacement Law No. 2 of 2008 on Amendments to Law No. 23 on Bank Indonesia
This government regulation slightly amends art 11 of Law No. 3 of 2004 on Amendments to Law No. 23 of 1999 on Bank Indonesia.
Contemporary Primary Sources :: Court Cases :: 8 Jumādā II 1435 / 7 April 2014
Kebumen Religious Court Decision No. 2623 of 2013: Claim Dismissed for Lack of Legal Standing
Pengadilan Agama Kebumen, Posted by ACU Research Staff, 19 August 2015
In November 2010, the plaintiff permitted his daughter and son-in-law to use his property to secure a murabahah financing agreement for IDR 182,400,000 from the defendant. Rather than his daughter and son-in-law being parties to the agreement, it was in fact their company that became party to the agreement, a point to which the plaintiff did not object. On 22 November 2010, the defendant requested that the plaintiff sign a declaration acknowledging that he was financially responsible for the agreement, as well as a power-of-attorney granting the defendant authority to deal with his property as it saw fit, in the event his daughter's company defaulted on its repayments.
The plaintiff submitted that he did not know what the loan money was intended for, nor did he know about the repayment scheme agreed to by the parties to the agreement. On 24 April 2013, the plaintiff was informed that his property would be auctioned as his daughter and son-in-law's company had indeed defaulted on a repayment. While the plaintiff was informed by his son-in-law that the debt owing was IDR 118,604,000 (four monthly repayments), when the plaintiff requested the relevant information from the defendant to repay the debt, the defendant, the plaintiff submitted, failed to provide him with that information, confusing the plaintiff further by telling him that the total debt was not actually IDR 182,400,000. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant then unilaterally set the sale price of the property, rather than obtaining a quote from an independent and reputable appraisal company registered with the Ministry of Finance, contrary to Law No. 4 of 1996 on Mortgages of Land and Fixtures. The plaintiff further submitted that the credit arrangement was unlawful as the plaintiff had still not seen any evidence of an agreement, such as a repayment receipt. More significantly, contrary to art 18(1)(g) and (3) of Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection, the plaintiff submitted that the defendant had included in the agreement a requirement that the plaintiff be subject to any new regulations the defendant sought to include. This conduct, the plaintiff asserted, was punishable by a maximum fine of IDR 2 billion (art 62 of Law No. 4 of 1996).
After court-sanctioned mediation failed, it initially appeared that the court had successfully counselled the parties, bringing them to reconcile. When this proved not to be the case, however, the plaintiff lodged an amended claim. In his amended claim, the plaintiff alleged that, in November 2010, the co-defendant, via his daughter, used the same property to secure the murabahah agreement. The plaintiff consented to this arrangement, pursuant to which the co-defendant secured IDR 182.4 million. On 22 November 2010, the plaintiff was asked by the defendant to sign a written statement that declared the plaintiff responsible for the financed amount, and that the plaintiff would fulfil all obligations pursuant to the agreement, pay all arrears and/or repayments, and provide his property as a security. On the same date, the plaintiff then signed a power of attorney before a notary, granting power of attorney to Limo Endriyanto, as head of the defendant's branch, to deal with the property as necessary in the event of a default. The plaintiff also signed a mortgage power of attorney in favour of the marketing department of the defendant, and a new mortgage deed was drafted on 20 December 2010. On 24 April 2013, the plaintiff was informed by the co-defendant that, owing to a default on the repayments to the defendant, the plaintiff's property would be auctioned on Wednesday 29 May 2013.
The plaintiff claimed that the co-defendant had informed him he would need to repay four instalments totalling IDR 118,604,000, however, he had only guaranteed repayment of IDR 182,400,000 in total. Moreover, despite his requests for further information to the defendant and co-defendant regarding the debt, the plaintiff received no information that clarified the situation.
On 25 December 2013, the plaintiff submitted, contrary to the mortgage deed, that the co-defendant visited him at his home and requested that he repay IDR 401,250,200, rather than the original IDR 182,400,000. The plaintiff also maintained that the co-defendant and defendant's conduct breached Law No. 4 of 1996 and Law No. 8 of 1999, as per the plaintiff's initial claim.
As a result of the confusion caused by the defendant and co-defendant, as well as time lost, the plaintiff submitted that he had suffered IDR 1 million in material damages. Moreover, due to the concern, disharmony and anxiety suffered by the plaintiff and his family, the plaintiff sought IDR 200 million in damages.
The court, however, finding that the plaintiff lacked the necessary legal standing as he was not a party to the original murabahah agreement, dismissed the plaintiff's claim.
Contemporary Primary Sources :: Fatwās - Contemporary :: 17 Rabīʿ II 1423 / 26 June 2002
National Shari'a Council - Indonesian Council of Ulama Fatwa No. 25 of 2002 on Mortgages
Dewan Syari'ah Nasional MUI, Posted by ACU Research Staff, 08 January 2016
This fatwa permits financial loans obtained via a mortgage, and outlines the obligations on the mortgagor and mortgagee until the loan is repaid.
Contemporary Primary Sources :: Fatwās - Contemporary :: 30 Dhū al-Ḥijja 1420 / 4 April 2000
National Shari'a Board - Indonesian Council of Ulama Fatwa No. 7 of 2000 on Mudharabah Financing
Dewan Syari'ah Nasional MUI, Posted by ACU Research Staff, 01 September 2015
This fatwa provides a set of guidelines for executing a mudharabah financing agreement. A mudharabah financing agreement entails one party (the financier) acting as the financial backer, and the other (the customer) as the manager of the venture. The two parties then share in the profits resulting from the venture, pursuant to the terms agreed upon in the contract.
The fatwa provides that the financier may not manage the venture or project, but has the right to foster and monitor the project. It also sets out contractual requirements to which all mudharabah agreements must adhere, including a statement of intent, what may constitute financial capital, as well as profit and how profit is to be shared by the parties. Damages are generally not available pursuant to a mudharabah agreement, unless loss has been incurred as a result of deliberate misconduct, negligence or a contravention on the part of one of the parties to the agreement.
Contemporary Primary Sources :: Fatwās - Contemporary :: 14 Jumādā II 1436 / 2 April 2015
National Shari'a Board - Indonesian Council of Ulama Fatwa No. 96 of 2015 on Islamic Hedging
This fatwa acknowledges a need to protect the value of foreign currency given the uncertainty of the exchange rate (Islamic hedging), and that, to date, shari'a-friendly provisions and instruments to deal with this trend are lacking.
The fatwa states that Islamic hedging is applicable to the following agreements:
'Aqd al-Tahawwuth al-Basith (simple value-protecting transaction), whereby parties agree to a certain amount of foreign currency to be sold and purchased, at a certain exchange rate, at a certain time, either as a once-off or on multiple occasions;
'Aqd al-Tahawwuth al-Murakkab (complex value-protecting transaction), whereby parties agree to a certain amount of foreign currency to be sold and purchased, at a certain exchange rate, at a certain time, as a once-off; and
'Aqd al-Tahawwuth fi Suq al-Sil'ah (shari'a commodity exchange value-protecting transaction), whereby a shari'a commodity exchange facilitates an Islamic hedging trader to conduct a commodities transaction at the shari'a commodity exchange.
Islamic hedging may only be conducted if there exists an apparent need to minimise an unavoidable risk associated with the exchange rate. It may not be performed for speculative purposes. The fatwa also maintains that an exchange rate must be agreed upon by both parties at the time they reach an agreement.
Contemporary Primary Sources :: Fatwās - Contemporary :: 3 Jumādā II 1435 / 2 April 2014
National Shari'a Board - Indonesian Council of Ulama Fatwa No. 91 of 2014 on Syndicated Financing
Dewan Syari'ah Nasional MUI, Posted by ACU Research Staff, 04 September 2015
This fatwa recognises the increase in shari'a-type business, as well as the demand for clarification on fiqh muamalah maliyah (commercial goods law), in order to increase its status and role. It also recognises that shari'a financial institutions have requested a fatwa for the development of syndicated shari'a financial products. The fatwa defines syndicated financing (al-tamwil al-mashrifi al-mujamma') as an agreement between several financial institutions (be they all shari'a financial institutions, or some shari'a financial institutions and some conventional financial institutions) to jointly-finance a specific project. Syndicated financing agreements can take the form of sale-purchase agreements, rental agreements, and joint-venture agreements. In the event all financial institutions are shari'a-based, all relevant information can be contained in one document. If some of the participating financial institutions are conventional, i.e. not shari'a-based, the conventional institutions must have their relevant information in a separate document from that of the shari'a-based financial institutions.
Contemporary Primary Sources :: Fatwās - Contemporary :: 8 Ṣafar 1434 / 21 December 2012
National Shari'a Board - Indonesian Council of Ulama Fatwa No. 87 of 2012 on Third Party Funds Income Smoothing
Dewan Syari'ah Nasional MUI, Posted by ACU Research Staff, 19 August 2015
This fatwa acknowledges that certain conditions will dictate that customers will transfer or withdraw their funds from a shari'a financial institution as a result of a displaced commercial risk, necessitating shari'a banking policies that:
smooth over revenue without a profit equalisation reserve; and
smooth over revenue with a profit equalisation reserve.
Accordingly, shari'a financial institutions require a set of shari'a-based guidelines pursuant to which they can form a profit equalisation reserve, derived from their own profits, and which tells them when may draw upon it. The fatwa dictates that income smoothing may only be conducted on third party monies under a mudharabah agreement. It may not be conducted if its implementation will merely result in accruing interest for the bank.
In the case of income smoothing without accessing a profit equalisation reserve, where profits from an enterprise are lower than projected, a shari'a financial institution may relinquish its right to equalise financial incentives for customers in order to remain competitive.
Contemporary Primary Sources :: Fatwās - Contemporary :: 17 Rajab 1433 / 6 June 2012
National Shari'a Board - Indonesian Council of Ulama Fatwa No. 83 of 2012 on Shari'a Multi-level Direct Sale of Umrah Services
This fatwa acknowledges that society requires a more detailed explanation on the shari'a multi-level direct sale of Umrah services. It addresses this by providing a raft of regulating guidelines regarding the provision and retention of services provided for those undertaking the Umrah.
Contemporary Primary Sources :: Fatwās - Contemporary :: 7 Ramaḍān 1432 / 5 August 2011
National Shari'a Board - Indonesian Council of Ulama Fatwa No. 82 of 2012 on Shari'a-Friendly Commodities Trading
This fatwa acknowledges that within society and shari'a financial institutions there has emerged a need to trade in commodities in a shari'a-friendly manner.
The fatwa dictates that commodities must be halal, legitimate, physically transferrable, be in the possession of the trader or their agent, and that all dealings must be executed pursuant to the agreement between the trader and purchaser. The fatwa also requires the Jakarta Futures Exchange to create shari'a-friendly commodities trading mechanisms, as well as facility for physical trades to be made.
Contemporary Primary Sources :: Court Cases :: 14 Rabīʿ II 1436 / 4 February 2015
Kebumen Religious Court Decision No. 2612 of 2014: Deed of Settlement Reached
Pengadilan Agama Kebumen, Posted by ACU Research Staff, 01 September 2015
The defendants were prepared to resolve the dispute at hand, as per the statement of claim, in a reconciliatory manner. The settlement agreed to was as follows:
To pay their remaining debt to the plaintiff of IDR 1,118,489,155.08, comprising the remainder of their shari'a account financing (IDR 993,357,931.08), profit arrears (IDR 75,131,224), and plaintiff's legal fees (IDR 50 million), payable by 14 April 2015;
To make payment directly to the plaintiff or through their legal advisor, including the necessary stamp duty;
In the event the defendants were unable to make payment, they were to grant the plaintiff permission to auction their secured assets, namely, three parcels of land;
The proceeds from any auction would be used to cover the defendants' debt of IDR 1,118,489,155.08, with any remaining monies to be transferred to the defendants; and
Any incidental costs incurred by the plaintiff were to be borne by the defendants.
The court approved the settlement and ordered the defendants to pay costs.