The Law No 40 of 2007 concerning PT (Limited Liability Company) regulates what can be done through teleconferencing media regulated in Article 77 paragraph (1) of Company Law so as to allow shareholders to conduct a GMS without having to meet in person and be in one place but can be held by teleconference which allows shareholders to see each other and interact actively in meetings The results of the minutes of the GMS held by the PT are not required to be written in the form of an authentic deed meaning that the PT can determine the agreement of the shareholders whether it will be written into an authentic deed or an underhand deed The minutes of the GMS by teleconference which are applied to the authentic deed by the Notary lose their authenticity because the Notary does not act according to the provisions in Article 16 paragraph (1) letter m UUJN-P which requires the physical presence of the parties in the process of drafting an authentic deed so that the power of proof of the deed under the hand as a result of an act that is not in accordance with Article 16 paragraph (1) letter m.

The objective of this research to reveal (1) the responsibility of a notary for the drafting of a double number and (2) the legal consequences if a double number occurs in a notarial deed. The types of this research is normative legal research. The research results indicated that (1) The notary's responsibility for making a notarial deed with a double number must be accounted for administratively. The existence of a double number on the notary deed indicates that the notary has been inadvertently applied in making an authentic deed. In every legal action that implies the use of authority, it implies an obligation of accountability. Thus, a notary who makes a notarial deed with a double number requires the notary to be administratively responsible, remembering that the negligence made by a notary is an administrative error; and (2) The legal consequences in the event of a double number in a notary deed do not cause any consequences if no party feels disadvantaged by the existence of this double number. All that is left is for the notary to publish the minutes of changing the deed number and notify parties such as the parties, the Ministry of Law and Human Rights and the local Land Office if the double-numbered deed is related to land rights. However, if the double numbered deed brings harm to another party, then the party who feels disadvantaged can sue the notary.

Credit delivery by the bank requires the debtor to pay the obligations that have been scheduled in the credit agreement, but it will not always work well, sometimes because of something and other things there are also debtors who can not fulfill the obligations that have been promised so that credit problems occur. Non-performing loans also cause problems for banks, because they can make banks collapse. Thus the question arises, how to avoid the occurrence of problem loans and if it occurs, how is the solution?.

An authentic deed can be perfect proof that must be signed by the parties. It becomes a problem when one or all of those who are obliged to sign or put fingerprints, but have a total disability of the hand or fingers (physically disabled) so that the person concerned is not able to sign or fingerprint. There is a norm in relation to a person with disabilities to make a deed before a notary. The purpose of this study is to find out the procedure for ratifying a notary deed in terms of hearing-impaired persons and the legal strength of a notary deed in terms of disabled persons. This study uses normative legal methods. The results of this study indicated that the stipulation of Article 44 of UUJNP makes it possible for persons with disabilities not to sign the deed, then at the end of the deed it is explained about a situation where the applicant is unable to sign the deed and therefore uses other forms of endorsement by writing by mouth and affidavit. The deed made by the person with disabilities is an authentic deed because the provisions of Article 44 UUJNP can be a substitute for signatures, so the notary deed made by persons with disabilities can function as evidence and are equipped with an affidavit. There is a need for a written rule that states clearly about the procedures for dealing with persons with disabilities in making a deed for the use of affidavit.

The objective of this study is to examine the obligation to pay the Final Income Tax by the seller of land and/or building rights before the sale and purchase certificate is signed in the presence of the Land Deed Official (PPAT) as regulated in Article 3 paragraph (1) and (5) of Act 34 Year 2016. Research method used is descriptive method under a sociolegal approach. Data were obtained from document studies and field research through interviews with several informants. Data were analyzed using legal certainty theory and authority theory. Based on the results of data analysis, it is obtained that the obligation to pay the final income tax before the deed is signed in the presence of PPAT, can result in the absence of legal certainty guarantee, so that it potentially causes harm to society and disrupts the balance of community life order.