{"id":919063,"date":"2026-05-18T10:48:03","date_gmt":"2026-05-18T08:48:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-13-mai-2026-2026-int-118-beezadhur-v-runnoo-ors\/"},"modified":"2026-05-18T10:48:03","modified_gmt":"2026-05-18T08:48:03","slug":"supreme-court-of-mauritius-13-mai-2026-2026-int-118-beezadhur-v-runnoo-ors","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-13-mai-2026-2026-int-118-beezadhur-v-runnoo-ors\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 13 mai 2026, 2026 INT 118 – Beezadhur v Runnoo & Ors"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

Page 1<\/p>\n

Beezadhur v Runnoo & Ors<\/p>\n

2026 INT 118<\/p>\n

THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS (Civil Division)<\/p>\n

In the matter of:- CN 280\/2022 Atmaram BEEZADHUR PLAINTIFF v. 1. Dhaneswar RUNNOO 2. Mukesh RAMBARAN 3. Vidya Prakash CHEEKHOORY DEFENDANTS<\/p>\n

JUDGMENT<\/p>\n

1. The Plaintiff is suing the Defendants for breach of agreement. He avers that, by virtue of a written agreement dated 24 December 2020, the Defendants acknowledged being indebted to him in the sum of Rs 875,000., which amount they undertook to reimburse by the end of January 2021. It is the Plaintiff\u2019s case that the Defendants have failed to pay him back. He is now claiming that amount from them, together with a sum of Rs 1,000,000. as damages.<\/p>\n

2. Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are resisting the action, whereas Defendant No. 2 left default. In his plea, Defendant No. 1 denies indebtedness to the Plaintiff and avers that, contrary to what is stipulated in the agreement, the sum in lite was credited to Defendant No. 2\u2019s personal bank account and not to that of \u201cR Square Company<\/p>\n

Page 2<\/p>\n

Limited\u201d. In a separate plea, Defendant No. 3 avers that, at the material time, he was the company secretary of \u201cR Square Company Limited\u201d. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who were the directors, ran the daily business of the company. According to Defendant No. 3, it was agreed that the Plaintiff would lend a sum of Rs 875,000. to \u201cR Square Company Limited\u201d for a construction project. However, Defendant No. 3 was not aware whether that sum was actually credited to the company\u2019s account as he has no access thereto.<\/p>\n

3. The Plaintiff testified to the effect that he agreed to lend money to Defendant No. 1 as he was a member of his family. The latter needed funds to build a garage. Accordingly, the Plaintiff proceeded to the Bank of Mauritius together with the three Defendants to unblock his MCB bank account. The account had a balance of Rs 875,000., which was transferred in full to another bank account. The Plaintiff affirmed that Defendant No. 1 and his friends undertook to pay him back within one month and signed an agreement to that effect, which he produced (Document B). The Defendants failed to honour their debt, causing great prejudice to him.<\/p>\n

4. Under cross-examination, the Plaintiff confirmed that the sum of Rs 875,000. was electronically transferred to the account of Defendant No. 2, and not to that of \u201cR Square Company Limited\u201d. The Plaintiff conceded that Document B inaccurately mentioned that money had been transferred to the aforesaid company. He agreed that Document B implied reciprocal obligations. The Plaintiff admitted that he signed Document B voluntarily at the bank, after the money had been transferred.<\/p>\n

5. A representative of the Registrar of Companies was called on behalf of Defendant No. 1 to produce an Extract of File of \u201cR Square Company Limited\u201d (Document C). He confirmed that the company was alive in December 2021. The company is in the process of being wound up since 02 May 2024. No further evidence was adduced on behalf of the Defendants.<\/p>\n

6. I have considered the evidence in the light of the pleadings and the submissions of Counsel. Neither Defendant No. 1 nor Defendant No. 3 disputes having signed Document B. However, they deny owing money to the Plaintiff being given that the sum of Rs 875,000. in lite was credited to Defendant No. 2\u2019s personal account, not to theirs, nor to that of their company \u201cR Square Company Limited\u201d. They, therefore, reject any form of liability under that instrument. For his part, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendants are jointly and in solido indebted to him on the strength of<\/p>\n

Page 3<\/p>\n

Document B, which the Plaintiff contends is an acknowledgement of debt (\u201creconnaissance de dette\u201d) from the Defendants in their personal names.<\/p>\n

7. Document B reads: \u201cTO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN AGREEMENT<\/p>\n

This is to certify that we the undersigned have borrowed a sum of Rs. 875,000 (Eight hundred and seventy-five thousand only) from, Mr. ATMARAM BEEZADHUR Having ID no. B1602473101292 of Sir Virgil Naaz Avenue, Belle Rose \u2013 Quatre Bornes whose bank account is at MCB Mauritius who has transferred the same sum to our R Square Company Limited of Rotin No.2 La Source \u2013 Quatre Bornes for a Construction Project. We the undernamed have agreed to return the above sum to the lender by the end of January 2021.<\/p>\n

BORROWER: LENDER: [sd] [sd] MR. MUKESH RAMBARAN MR. ATMARAM BEEZADHUR [sd] MR. VIDYA PRAKASH CHEEKHOORY [sd] MR. DHANESWAR RUNNOO R290473450037B Done in good faith on 24 th December 2020.\u201d [Emphasis as per original document].<\/p>\n

Page 4<\/p>\n

8. According to article 1326 of the Code Civil Mauricien (CCM): \u201cL\u2019acte juridique par lequel une seule partie s\u2019engage envers une autre \u00e0 lui payer une somme d\u2019argent ou \u00e0 lui livrer un bien fongible doit \u00eatre constat\u00e9 dans un titre qui comporte la signature de celui qui souscrit cet engagement ainsi que la mention, \u00e9crite par lui-m\u00eame, de la somme ou de la quantit\u00e9 en toutes lettres et en chiffres. En cas de diff\u00e9rence, l\u2019acte sous seing priv\u00e9 vaut pour la somme \u00e9crite en toutes lettres.\u201d<\/p>\n

9. I find the following notes from R\u00e9pertoire de Droit Civil \u2013 Encyclop\u00e9die Num\u00e9rique Dalloz \u2013 Preuve (1\u00b0 modes de prevue) pertinent to the issues arising in the case at hand: \u201c308. Pluralit\u00e9 de d\u00e9biteurs. – La premi\u00e8re question est la suivante : est-il n\u00e9cessaire qu'une seule personne soit oblig\u00e9e ? Elle peut \u00eatre facilement r\u00e9solue. Commen\u00e7ant par les mots \u00ab L'acte juridique par lequel une seule partie s'engage envers une autre \u00bb, le texte de l'article 1326 du code civil pourrait laisser croire qu'il ne doit pas s'appliquer lorsque deux ou plusieurs personnes s'obligent au profit d'une autre. Une telle interpr\u00e9tation ne serait pas conforme \u00e0 l'esprit de cette disposition qui est de prot\u00e9ger tout souscripteur d'un engagement unilat\u00e9ral, qu'il s'oblige seul ou avec d'autres ; la pluralit\u00e9 de d\u00e9biteurs, conjoints ou solidaires, n'emp\u00eache pas l'engagement d'\u00eatre unilat\u00e9ral et ne supprime en rien le risque de fraude ou d'abus de blanc-seing unanimement invoqu\u00e9 comme raison d'\u00eatre de la formalit\u00e9 de la mention manuscrite. Pour que celle-ci soit requise, ce qui compte, c'est qu'il n'y ait pas d'obligations r\u00e9ciproques, qu'il n'y ait d'engagement \u00ab que d'un seul c\u00f4t\u00e9 \u00bb (Civ. 8 ao\u00fbt 1918, S. 1816. 1.98 ; 13 f\u00e9vr. 1968, sol. impl., JCP 1968. II. 15477, note R. L. ; RTD civ. 1968. 709, obs. Chevallier. – PLANIOL et RIPERT, t. 7, par GABOLDE, n o 1475. – AUBRY et RAU, t. 12, par ESMEIN, \u00a7 756, p. 168). 309. Acte contenant des engagements r\u00e9ciproques. – La deuxi\u00e8me question est de savoir si, en fait, un acte d\u00e9termin\u00e9 contient ou non des engagements r\u00e9ciproques. Elle est plus s\u00e9rieuse que la premi\u00e8re. Dans l'affirmative, en effet, l'application de l'article 1326 du code civil est exclue, au profit de l'article 1325 imposant la formalit\u00e9 du \u00ab double \u00bb. Nous retrouvons donc ici la casuistique que nous avons signal\u00e9e lors de l'examen du domaine de l'article 1325 (V. supra, n os 220 s.). Les juges du fond ont l'obligation de rechercher si l'acte litigieux contenait ou non des obligations r\u00e9ciproques. Ainsi, manque de base l\u00e9gale la d\u00e9cision<\/p>\n

Page 5<\/p>\n

d\u00e9clarant que l'engagement pris par une personne, dans un acte dactylographi\u00e9 ne comportant pas la mention exig\u00e9e par l'article 1326 du code civil, de participer \u00ab \u00e0 raison de 33 p. 100 \u00bb au paiement de travaux d'adduction d'eau envisag\u00e9s par un voisin sur un fonds contigu du sien ne constitue pas un engagement unilat\u00e9ral soumis aux exigences du texte susvis\u00e9, d\u00e8s lors que \u00ab cet engagement implique n\u00e9cessairement l'accomplissement pr\u00e9alable d'une contrepartie d\u00e9termin\u00e9e \u00bb, sans rechercher si l'acte litigieux contenait des engagements r\u00e9ciproques de la part des parties (Civ. 1 re, 7 juin 1979, JCP 1979. IV. 266 ; D. 1980. IR 261, obs. Ghestin).\u201d [Emphasis added].<\/p>\n

10. A perusal of Document B indicates that the so-called acknowledgement of debt on the part of the Defendants has been made contingent to the money being credited to the account of \u201cR Square Company Limited\u201d. The Defendants\u2019 undertaking was, thus, not \u201cunilat\u00e9ral\u201d as it entailed \u201cdes engagements r\u00e9ciproques\u201d. Hence, in view of the existence of reciprocal obligations, Document B cannot be construed as an acknowledgement of debt within the purview of article 1326 of the CCM. The facts of this case are, therefore, distinguishable from those in the case of Govinda v. Chackhoor (2020) SCJ 181, which was specifically relied upon by Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff. In the latter case, being given that no condition was attached to the acknowledgement made, the Court of Civil Appeal concluded that the instrument under scrutiny satisfied all the conditions of a valid \u201creconnaissance de dette\u201d and was thus enforceable.<\/p>\n

11. Now, notwithstanding the fact that Document B is not strictly speaking a \u201creconnaissance de dette\u201d, the document is not de facto stripped of all its effects. Document B still amounts to a \u201ccommencement de preuve par \u00e9crit\u201d opening the door to oral evidence of the debt \u2013 vide Aumeer v. Mootoo (2008) SCJ 352.<\/p>\n

12. In that connection, I have carefully assessed the testimony of the Plaintiff. He conceded that Document B contained erroneous stipulations. Notably, the Plaintiff admitted in Court that the sum of Rs 875,000. in question was actually transferred to the bank account of Defendant No. 2, contrary to the terms of the agreement. There is no evidence that either Defendant No. 1 or Defendant No. 3 benefitted from that money, be it personally or through their company \u201cR Square Company Limited\u201d. For<\/p>\n

Page 6<\/p>\n

these reasons, I find that the Plaintiff has failed to establish his claim against Defendant Nos. 1 and 3.<\/p>\n

13. Regardless of the above finding, the Court has to consider whether the Plaintiff has established his case against Defendant No. 2. In that respect, the Court is in presence of the unrebutted evidence of the Plaintiff. It has been satisfactorily made out that a sum of Rs 875,000. has been transferred from the Plaintiff\u2019s bank account to that of Defendant No. 2, with an obligation to reimburse that amount to the Plaintiff by the end of January 2021. I have no reason to doubt the affirmation of the Plaintiff that he never got his money back as promised. In the circumstances, Defendant No. 2 has to make good the said sum of Rs 875,000. However, I find the Plaintiff\u2019s claim for damages to the tune of Rs 1,000,000. unsubstantiated and I am not prepared to make any award in that respect in the absence of cogent evidence.<\/p>\n

14. For all the above reasons, I dismiss the case against Defendant Nos. 1 and 3, with costs. I give judgment against Defendant No. 2 and order him to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of Rs 875,000., together with interest at legal rate as from the date of judgment, and costs.<\/p>\n

13 May 2026<\/p>\n

M. ARMOOGUM Magistrate<\/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":"

Page 1 Beezadhur v Runnoo & Ors 2026 INT 118 THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS (Civil Division) In the matter of:- CN 280\/2022 Atmaram BEEZADHUR PLAINTIFF v. 1. Dhaneswar RUNNOO 2. Mukesh RAMBARAN 3. Vidya Prakash CHEEKHOORY DEFENDANTS JUDGMENT 1. The Plaintiff is suing the Defendants for breach of agreement. He avers that, by virtue of a written agreement dated…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":[],"kji_country":[92666],"kji_court":[92667],"kji_chamber":[92679],"kji_year":[7610],"kji_subject":[7646],"kji_keyword":[92680,15757,92681,15594],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-919063","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-maurice","kji_court-supreme-court-of-mauritius","kji_chamber-mr-m-armoogum-magistrate-intermediate-court","kji_year-7610","kji_subject-divers","kji_keyword-beezadhur","kji_keyword-mauritius","kji_keyword-runnoo","kji_keyword-supreme","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court of Mauritius, 13 mai 2026, 2026 INT 118 - Beezadhur v Runnoo & Ors - 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-13-mai-2026-2026-int-118-beezadhur-v-runnoo-ors\/\" \/>\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, 13 mai 2026, 2026 INT 118 - Beezadhur v Runnoo & Ors\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Page 1 Beezadhur v Runnoo & Ors 2026 INT 118 THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS (Civil Division) In the matter of:- CN 280\/2022 Atmaram BEEZADHUR PLAINTIFF v. 1. Dhaneswar RUNNOO 2. Mukesh RAMBARAN 3. Vidya Prakash CHEEKHOORY DEFENDANTS JUDGMENT 1. The Plaintiff is suing the Defendants for breach of agreement. He avers that, by virtue of a written agreement dated...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-13-mai-2026-2026-int-118-beezadhur-v-runnoo-ors\/\" \/>\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=\"9 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-13-mai-2026-2026-int-118-beezadhur-v-runnoo-ors\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-13-mai-2026-2026-int-118-beezadhur-v-runnoo-ors\\\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 13 mai 2026, 2026 INT 118 - Beezadhur v Runnoo & Ors - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-18T08:48:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-13-mai-2026-2026-int-118-beezadhur-v-runnoo-ors\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-13-mai-2026-2026-int-118-beezadhur-v-runnoo-ors\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-13-mai-2026-2026-int-118-beezadhur-v-runnoo-ors\\\/#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, 13 mai 2026, 2026 INT 118 – Beezadhur v Runnoo & Ors\"}]},{\"@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, 13 mai 2026, 2026 INT 118 - Beezadhur v Runnoo & Ors - 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-13-mai-2026-2026-int-118-beezadhur-v-runnoo-ors\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 13 mai 2026, 2026 INT 118 - Beezadhur v Runnoo & Ors","og_description":"Page 1 Beezadhur v Runnoo & Ors 2026 INT 118 THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS (Civil Division) In the matter of:- CN 280\/2022 Atmaram BEEZADHUR PLAINTIFF v. 1. Dhaneswar RUNNOO 2. Mukesh RAMBARAN 3. Vidya Prakash CHEEKHOORY DEFENDANTS JUDGMENT 1. The Plaintiff is suing the Defendants for breach of agreement. He avers that, by virtue of a written agreement dated...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-13-mai-2026-2026-int-118-beezadhur-v-runnoo-ors\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-13-mai-2026-2026-int-118-beezadhur-v-runnoo-ors\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-13-mai-2026-2026-int-118-beezadhur-v-runnoo-ors\/","name":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 13 mai 2026, 2026 INT 118 - Beezadhur v Runnoo & Ors - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-05-18T08:48:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-13-mai-2026-2026-int-118-beezadhur-v-runnoo-ors\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-13-mai-2026-2026-int-118-beezadhur-v-runnoo-ors\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-13-mai-2026-2026-int-118-beezadhur-v-runnoo-ors\/#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, 13 mai 2026, 2026 INT 118 – Beezadhur v Runnoo & Ors"}]},{"@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\/919063","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=919063"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=919063"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=919063"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=919063"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=919063"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=919063"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=919063"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=919063"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}