{"id":1056322,"date":"2026-06-06T19:43:40","date_gmt":"2026-06-06T17:43:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-8-juin-2020-2020-ind-6-dhoonmoon-n-v-envie-bold-ltd\/"},"modified":"2026-06-06T19:43:40","modified_gmt":"2026-06-06T17:43:40","slug":"supreme-court-of-mauritius-8-juin-2020-2020-ind-6-dhoonmoon-n-v-envie-bold-ltd","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-8-juin-2020-2020-ind-6-dhoonmoon-n-v-envie-bold-ltd\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 8 juin 2020, 2020 IND 6 – Dhoonmoon N. v Envie Bold Ltd"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

1<\/p>\n

Dhoonmoon N. v Envie Bold Ltd<\/p>\n

2020 IND 6<\/p>\n

Cause Number 618\/15<\/p>\n

IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MAURITIUS (Civil side)<\/p>\n

In the matter of:<\/p>\n

Nilesh Dhoonmoon<\/p>\n

Plaintiff<\/p>\n

v.<\/p>\n

Envie Bold Ltd<\/p>\n

Defendant<\/p>\n

Judgment<\/p>\n

Plaintiff has averred that he was employed as a lead digital designer by Defendant which is a company involved in Graphic design & creative communication works. At no time has it been averred that his employment was by virtue of an agreement reached on a specified date, of a specified month and of a specified year. Likewise, it has not been averred that he was in the continuous employment of Defendant be it on a full time or part time basis in order to attract a monthly salary in the sum of Rs.20,000. He has further alleged that he has not been remunerated by Defendant for the months of January 2015 to May 2015 making a sum total of Rs. 100,000\/ – resulting in a breach in his condition of employment, that is, non-payment of salary and as such he resigned in June 2015 after having given the required notice to the Defendant.<\/p>\n

Thus, Plaintiff is claiming from the Defendant the sum of Rs.100,000\/- as it was indebted to him in that sum representing unpaid salary. Defendant, for its part, has denied liability given that there was no contract of employment between them. Plaintiff was operating as a freelance designer and his services were retained by Defendant on an irregular basis like it was the case in February 2015 and that he was being paid for specific works on an \u201con and off basis\u201d and the issue of paying Plaintiff the monthly salary of Rs. 20,000\/- did not arise so that there was no need for any resignation letter to be forwarded to it as he was never employed by Defendant for the purposes of a monthly salary to be paid to him.<\/p>\n

At this stage, without the need to go into the merits of the case, I find that there is no valid cause of action disclosed ex facie the material\/essential averments in the plaint as the date of the contract of employment has not been averred and which is of the essence in the present matter in order for the claim for unpaid salary for the months of January 2015 to May 2015 to be validly invoked by Plaintiff. At this particular juncture, I find it appropriate to quote an extract from the case of New Beau Bassin Co-operative Store v Juggroo [1980 MR 320] which reads as follows: \u201cA cause of action is constituted by the averment of facts which, if denied, require to be proved to enable a plaintiff to obtain a remedy he seeks. The nature and extent of the remedy sought is a legal consequence of those facts and, as such, is a matter of law which the court has to apply\u201d (underlining is mine). It is apt to refer to the case of Gungadin J. v The State of Mauritius Anor. [2015 SCJ 193] where it was tersely stated that to decide as to whether a plaint discloses a cause of action, the essential averments contained in the plaint with summons will have to be examined closely. After having complied with that exercise, the matter was set aside without recourse being had to particulars in order to render valid or to cure that otherwise invalid cause of action. This is because, it is not the function of particulars to take the place of essential averments in the plaint in order to fill the gaps to make good an inherently bad plaint (as per Scott L.J. in Pinson v Lloyds & National Foreign Bank Ltd. [1941] 2 KB 72 at 75); see also \u2013 Charlie Carter Pty Ltd v. The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association of Western Australia (1987) 13 FCR 413 at 419 and H 1976 Nominees Pty Ltd v. Galli (1979) 30 ALR<\/p>\n

181 at [13] \u2013 [23] which pertain to a Common Wealth jurisdiction namely Australia derived from the English rules of procedure like ours.) – otherwise any bogus or nonsensical plaint will be endlessly cured by way of particulars which is against the overriding principle of procedural fairness ensuring proportional expenses and thus undermining faith in our civil justice system as fundamentally defective plaints would de facto be non-existent. This is because the purpose of particulars is to define the generality or vagueness of material facts already pleaded with a sufficient degree of specificity to convey to the other party the case that it has to meet by the evidence ex facie the plaint on the basis of the facts pleaded which if proved, are sufficient to establish the cause of action relied on (see – Danjoux v Partnership Bangaroo – Danjoux and Cie [2001 MR 64] ; Spedding v. Fitzpatrick (1888) 38 Ch.D. 410; 59 l.t.492, C.A. ; Cassim (supra) and Premchand I. & Ors. v. Jagoo A.R. & Ors.[2013 SCJ 184]). Thus, particulars form part of the pleadings as a matter of concept only and no more. Now, the provision of the law regulating the contents of a plaint is provided by Rule 3(1) (b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 2000 as follows:<\/p>\n

\u201c3. Contents of plaint with summons (1) A plaint with summons shall \u2013 (a) (\u2026) (b) State the substance of the cause of action; (\u2026)\u201d<\/p>\n

Given that our District, Industrial and Intermediate Court Rules 1992 are silent on that issue, we follow Supreme Court Rules for guidance as no repugnancy whatsoever is being caused to our rules of court (see – Jhundoo v. Jhurry[1981 SCJ 98]).<\/p>\n

An excerpt from the case of Mauritius Commercial Bank Limited v The Mauritius Union Assurance Company Limited [2010 SCJ 97] affords a useful illustration of the term \u201csubstance of the cause of action\u201d meaning all material facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action as reproduced below:<\/p>\n

\u201c Having found that the requirement of our relevant Supreme Court Rule that the plaint \u201c shall state the substance of the cause of action\u201d has been satisfied, (\u2026)The defendant is entitled to know what it is that the plaintiff alleges against him\u2026\u2026.\u201d in Odgers on the Principles of Pleadings and Practice, under the heading \u201cThe function of Pleadings\u201d or \u201cIndeed a plaintiff need not plead law, yet it is his duty to state with precision all the material facts \u201cnecessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action\u201d, referred to in A.Z.A.A. Cassim v The United Bus Service Co. Ltd [1986 MR 242].\u201d<\/p>\n

Moreover, Rule 13 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 2000 provides that:- \u201cEvery pleading shall clearly and distinctly state all matters of fact that are necessary to sustain the plaint, plea or counterclaim as the case may be.\u201d Indeed, the cursus of our case law shows a rigorous application of Rule 3(1) (b) because procedural fairness imposes on the Plaintiff an undeniable duty to inform the Defendant in a concise and precise manner what it is that the Plaintiff is alleging against it. It boils down to mean that \u201ca cause of action\u201d comprises of \u201cevery fact which is material to be proved to enable the Plaintiff to succeed; in other words, every fact which, if traversed, the plaintiff must prove to obtain judgment\u201d (see- Heera v Ramjan & Ors.[1976 MR 220]) \u201cso that a plaint which will not aver all material facts would, therefore, not disclose a cause of action\u201d (see – Geerjanan P. v The Mauritius Commercial Bank Ltd [2006 SCJ 320], Compagnie Mauricienne de Textile Limit\u00e9e v. Scott Shipping International Ltd.[2015 SCJ 8], Metex Trading Co.Ltd. v The State of Mauritius & Ors.[2014 SCJ 219], Constantin Roland v Jhuboo Scilla Par Vaty [2014 SCJ 221] and Tostee J.Y. v Property Partnerships Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd [2015 SCJ 41] ).<\/p>\n

As explained by the learned author Odgers on High Court Pleading and Practice 23 ed. at page 124:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe function of pleadings then is to ascertain with precision the matters on which the parties differ and the points on which they agree; and thus to arrive at certain clear issues on which both parties desire a judicial decision. In order to attain this object, it is necessary that the pleadings interchanged between the parties should be conducted according to certain fixed rules (\u2026)\u201d (emphasis added). Indeed, the case of Tostee (supra) has highlighted the importance of pleaded facts which reads as follows: \u201cThe case of Ramjan v Kaudeer[1981 MR 411][1981 SCJ 387] may also be referred to whereby the court had relied upon cases of Chetty v. Vengadasalon[1901 MR 22], Deena v. Malaiyandee 1940 Pt.II MR 156 and Ramdharry v. Dhumun[1942 MR 108] as being examples of judgments which have been quashed on appeal on the ground that the decisions were based on issues which did not appear in the pleadings. The case of Ramjan v Kaudeer (supra) further referred to certain passages of Bullen and Leake, and Jacobs Precedents of Pleadings 12 th Ed. which were quoted in the judgment of Jagatsingh and Walter v. Boodhoo (supra) and explained that once a party has stated the facts on which he relies, these facts are binding and the Court cannot ground its judgment on other facts which may come to light in the course of the trial\u201d (emphasis added). The word \u201cmaterial\u201d means those facts, which are necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action, and if any one \u2018material\u2019 fact is omitted, the statement of claim is bad (see – Odgers Principles of Pleading and Practice, 22 ed. at p.98; Bruce v Odhams Press Ltd [1936 1 KB, at p. 697]. Odgers (supra) at p.100 goes on to state that: \u201cEach party must state his whole case. He must plead all facts on which he intends to rely, otherwise he cannot strictly give any evidence of them at the trial. The plaintiff is not<\/p>\n

entitled to relief except in regard to that which is alleged in the pleadings and proved at the trial (per Warrington J. in Re Wrightson [1908] 1 Ch. at p. 799)\u201d. The observations of Lord Esher M.R. in Read v. Brown (1888) 22 Q.B.D. 128 at page 131 cited with approval in the case of Premchand I. & Ors.v Jagoo A.R. & Ors.[2013 SCJ 184] further illustrates the meaning of \u201cmaterial facts\u201d as reproduced below: \u201cIt has been defined in Cooke v. Gill (Law Rep.8 C.P.107) to be this: every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. It does not comprise every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, but every fact which is necessary to be proved.\u201d This is in line with the reasoning in the case of Compagnie Mauricienne de Textile Limit\u00e9e (supra). Therefore, the threshold needed to be reached in order to formulate a complete cause of action cannot be based on a mere subjective assumption nor on a mere reliance on the evidence to be adduced to perfect that lack of precision in the material facts, nor on particulars to fill those gaps. As pointed out by the learned author Odgers on High Court Pleading and Practice 23 ed. at page 145 at para. (iv): \u201c In the first place, material facts must be stated clearly and definitely. (\u2026) Pleadings are useless unless they state facts with precision.\u201d In other words, l\u2019action est un voie de droit; le titulaire de l\u2019action doit transformer cette facult\u00e9 en acte; cet acte est pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment la demande en justice which means that la demande est la puissance pass\u00e9e en acte.<\/p>\n

As per R\u00e9p.pr.civ.Dalloz Tome 1, page 4,notes 1,4 : \u201cL\u2019action en justice\u201d has been defined as:<\/p>\n

1. \u201c le fondement de la recevabilit\u00e9 des pr\u00e9tentions.(\u2026) Avoir une action, ou avoir le droit d\u2019agir, c\u2019est donc, pour tout plaideur, demandeur ou d\u00e9fendeur, avoir une pr\u00e9tention recevable.(\u2026)<\/p>\n

4. En droit positif, cela doit \u00eatre soulign\u00e9 d\u2019embl\u00e9e, la recevabilit\u00e9 des pr\u00e9tentions est subordonn\u00e9e \u00e0 plusieurs conditions.(..) En r\u00e9alit\u00e9, il convient de distinguer plusieurs sortes de conditions. Selon S.GUINCHARD et F.FERRAND, \u201con peut, dans cette perspective, distinguer les conditions relatives \u00e0 la personne qui agit, celles qui concernent l\u2019objet de la demande, enfin celles qui pr\u00e9cisent dans quel d\u00e9lai il faut agir.\u201d (Proc\u00e9dure civile. Droit interne et droit communautaire, 28e \u00e9.,2006, Pr\u00e9cis Dalloz, no. 120). Une formule de G.CORNU et J.FOYER( Proc\u00e9dure civile, 3e \u00e9d., 1996, coll. Th\u00e9mis, PUF, p.322) r\u00e9sume de mani\u00e8re frappante la triple exigence qui pr\u00e9side \u00e0 l\u2019ouverture de l\u2019action en justice : \u201cN\u2019importe qui n\u2019a pas le droit de demander n\u2019importe quoi, n\u2019importe quand \u00e0 un juge\u201d (V. \u00e9gal R. PERROT, Institutions judiciaries, 12e \u00e9d., 2006, Pr\u00e9cis Domat, Montchrestien, no. 536).\u201d (emphasis added)<\/p>\n

R\u00e9p.pr.civ.Dalloz Tome I page 18 & 37 notes 93, 215: \u201c93. (\u2026) L\u2019action est une voie de droit, un simple pouvoir virtuel que son titulaire peut pr\u00e9f\u00e9rer ne pas exercer, soit par souci de conciliation, soit pour ne pas courir les risques d\u2019un proc\u00e8s. Mais si le titulaire de l\u2019action veut effectivement exercer cette voie de droit et saisir les tribunaux comp\u00e9tents, il doit alors transformer cette facult\u00e9 en acte: et cet acte est pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment la demande en justice[\u2026] en un mot la demande en justice est la puissance pass\u00e9e en acte\u201d(R.PERROT, Cours de droit judiciare priv\u00e9,op.cit.,p.40; S.GUINCHARD et F.FERRAND, op.cit.,no.94). L\u2019action pr\u00e9c\u00e8de donc la demande. C\u2019est la raison pour laquelle elle peut \u00eatre l\u2019objet d\u2019actes juridiques alors m\u00eame qu\u2019aucune demande n\u2019a \u00e9t\u00e9 form\u00e9e (G.CORNU et J.FOYER,op.cit.,p.313; G.WIEDERKEHR, article pr\u00e9c.[ M\u00e9langes Simler],sp\u00e9c.p.905 et s.).<\/p>\n

215. L\u2019id\u00e9e que l\u2019ouverture de l\u2019action est subordonn\u00e9e \u00e0 l\u2019existence d\u2019un \u201cint\u00e9r\u00eat l\u00e9gitime \u00e0 agir\u201d est traditionnelle. Un adage de l\u2019Ancien droit l\u2019exprime avec force et concision: \u201cpas d\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat, pas d\u2019action\u201d ( V.H.ROLAND et L.BOYER, Adages du droit fran\u00e7ais, 4e \u00e9d., 1999, Litec).9.(\u2026)\u201d (emphasis added)<\/p>\n

Therefore, it is abundantly clear that all the material facts\/elements for a valid cause of action must be averred in the plaint.<\/p>\n

For the reasons given above, it is clear that ex facie the material facts of the plaint, it cannot be concluded that the Plaintiff was employed at all on a continuous basis by virtue of a contract of employment covering the year 2015 so that liability could be inferred. Given that no valid cause of action has been formulated against the Defendant, the plaint is dismissed.<\/p>\n

S.D. Bonomally (Mrs.) (Ag. Vice President) 8.6.2020<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a> · PDF officiel<\/a><\/p>\n

Supreme Court of Mauritius – public domain<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1 Dhoonmoon N. v Envie Bold Ltd 2020 IND 6 Cause Number 618\/15 IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MAURITIUS (Civil side) In the matter of: Nilesh Dhoonmoon Plaintiff v. Envie Bold Ltd Defendant Judgment Plaintiff has averred that he was employed as a lead digital designer by Defendant which is a company involved in Graphic design & creative communication works….<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":[],"kji_country":[92666],"kji_court":[92667],"kji_chamber":[127731],"kji_year":[41198],"kji_subject":[7646],"kji_keyword":[128257,128258,15757,15594],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-1056322","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-maurice","kji_court-supreme-court-of-mauritius","kji_chamber-mrs-s-d-bonomally-acting-vice-president-industrial-court","kji_year-41198","kji_subject-divers","kji_keyword-dhoonmoon","kji_keyword-envie","kji_keyword-mauritius","kji_keyword-supreme","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court of Mauritius, 8 juin 2020, 2020 IND 6 - Dhoonmoon N. v Envie Bold Ltd - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-8-juin-2020-2020-ind-6-dhoonmoon-n-v-envie-bold-ltd\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 8 juin 2020, 2020 IND 6 - Dhoonmoon N. v Envie Bold Ltd\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"1 Dhoonmoon N. v Envie Bold Ltd 2020 IND 6 Cause Number 618\/15 IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MAURITIUS (Civil side) In the matter of: Nilesh Dhoonmoon Plaintiff v. Envie Bold Ltd Defendant Judgment Plaintiff has averred that he was employed as a lead digital designer by Defendant which is a company involved in Graphic design & creative communication works....\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-8-juin-2020-2020-ind-6-dhoonmoon-n-v-envie-bold-ltd\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-8-juin-2020-2020-ind-6-dhoonmoon-n-v-envie-bold-ltd\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-8-juin-2020-2020-ind-6-dhoonmoon-n-v-envie-bold-ltd\\\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 8 juin 2020, 2020 IND 6 - Dhoonmoon N. v Envie Bold Ltd - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-06T17:43:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-8-juin-2020-2020-ind-6-dhoonmoon-n-v-envie-bold-ltd\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-8-juin-2020-2020-ind-6-dhoonmoon-n-v-envie-bold-ltd\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-8-juin-2020-2020-ind-6-dhoonmoon-n-v-envie-bold-ltd\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/criminal-law-attorneys-in-paris-counsel-and-strategic-defense\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 8 juin 2020, 2020 IND 6 – Dhoonmoon N. v Envie Bold Ltd\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp\",\"width\":1000,\"height\":1000,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 8 juin 2020, 2020 IND 6 - Dhoonmoon N. v Envie Bold Ltd - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-8-juin-2020-2020-ind-6-dhoonmoon-n-v-envie-bold-ltd\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 8 juin 2020, 2020 IND 6 - Dhoonmoon N. v Envie Bold Ltd","og_description":"1 Dhoonmoon N. v Envie Bold Ltd 2020 IND 6 Cause Number 618\/15 IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MAURITIUS (Civil side) In the matter of: Nilesh Dhoonmoon Plaintiff v. Envie Bold Ltd Defendant Judgment Plaintiff has averred that he was employed as a lead digital designer by Defendant which is a company involved in Graphic design & creative communication works....","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-8-juin-2020-2020-ind-6-dhoonmoon-n-v-envie-bold-ltd\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-8-juin-2020-2020-ind-6-dhoonmoon-n-v-envie-bold-ltd\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-8-juin-2020-2020-ind-6-dhoonmoon-n-v-envie-bold-ltd\/","name":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 8 juin 2020, 2020 IND 6 - Dhoonmoon N. v Envie Bold Ltd - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-06-06T17:43:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-8-juin-2020-2020-ind-6-dhoonmoon-n-v-envie-bold-ltd\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-8-juin-2020-2020-ind-6-dhoonmoon-n-v-envie-bold-ltd\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-8-juin-2020-2020-ind-6-dhoonmoon-n-v-envie-bold-ltd\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/criminal-law-attorneys-in-paris-counsel-and-strategic-defense\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 8 juin 2020, 2020 IND 6 – Dhoonmoon N. v Envie Bold Ltd"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp","width":1000,"height":1000,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/1056322","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1056322"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=1056322"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=1056322"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=1056322"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=1056322"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=1056322"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=1056322"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=1056322"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}