Supreme Court of Mauritius, 13 mai 2026, 2026 INT 118 – Beezadhur v Runnoo & Ors

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 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’s 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.

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’s personal bank account and not to that of “R Square Company

Page 2

Limited”. In a separate plea, Defendant No. 3 avers that, at the material time, he was the company secretary of “R Square Company Limited”. 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 “R Square Company Limited” for a construction project. However, Defendant No. 3 was not aware whether that sum was actually credited to the company’s account as he has no access thereto.

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.

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 “R Square Company Limited”. 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.

5. A representative of the Registrar of Companies was called on behalf of Defendant No. 1 to produce an Extract of File of “R Square Company Limited” (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.

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’s personal account, not to theirs, nor to that of their company “R Square Company Limited”. 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

Page 3

Document B, which the Plaintiff contends is an acknowledgement of debt (“reconnaissance de dette”) from the Defendants in their personal names.

7. Document B reads: “TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN AGREEMENT

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 – 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 – 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.

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.” [Emphasis as per original document].

Page 4

8. According to article 1326 of the Code Civil Mauricien (CCM): “L’acte juridique par lequel une seule partie s’engage envers une autre à lui payer une somme d’argent ou à lui livrer un bien fongible doit être constaté dans un titre qui comporte la signature de celui qui souscrit cet engagement ainsi que la mention, écrite par lui-même, de la somme ou de la quantité en toutes lettres et en chiffres. En cas de différence, l’acte sous seing privé vaut pour la somme écrite en toutes lettres.”

9. I find the following notes from Répertoire de Droit Civil – Encyclopédie Numérique Dalloz – Preuve (1° modes de prevue) pertinent to the issues arising in the case at hand: “308. Pluralité de débiteurs. – La première question est la suivante : est-il nécessaire qu'une seule personne soit obligée ? Elle peut être facilement résolue. Commençant par les mots « L'acte juridique par lequel une seule partie s'engage envers une autre », 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 interprétation ne serait pas conforme à l'esprit de cette disposition qui est de protéger tout souscripteur d'un engagement unilatéral, qu'il s'oblige seul ou avec d'autres ; la pluralité de débiteurs, conjoints ou solidaires, n'empêche pas l'engagement d'être unilatéral et ne supprime en rien le risque de fraude ou d'abus de blanc-seing unanimement invoqué comme raison d'être de la formalité de la mention manuscrite. Pour que celle-ci soit requise, ce qui compte, c'est qu'il n'y ait pas d'obligations réciproques, qu'il n'y ait d'engagement « que d'un seul côté » (Civ. 8 août 1918, S. 1816. 1.98 ; 13 févr. 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, § 756, p. 168). 309. Acte contenant des engagements réciproques. – La deuxième question est de savoir si, en fait, un acte déterminé contient ou non des engagements réciproques. Elle est plus sérieuse que la première. Dans l'affirmative, en effet, l'application de l'article 1326 du code civil est exclue, au profit de l'article 1325 imposant la formalité du « double ». Nous retrouvons donc ici la casuistique que nous avons signalée 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 réciproques. Ainsi, manque de base légale la décision

Page 5

déclarant que l'engagement pris par une personne, dans un acte dactylographié ne comportant pas la mention exigée par l'article 1326 du code civil, de participer « à raison de 33 p. 100 » au paiement de travaux d'adduction d'eau envisagés par un voisin sur un fonds contigu du sien ne constitue pas un engagement unilatéral soumis aux exigences du texte susvisé, dès lors que « cet engagement implique nécessairement l'accomplissement préalable d'une contrepartie déterminée », sans rechercher si l'acte litigieux contenait des engagements réciproques de la part des parties (Civ. 1 re, 7 juin 1979, JCP 1979. IV. 266 ; D. 1980. IR 261, obs. Ghestin).” [Emphasis added].

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 “R Square Company Limited”. The Defendants’ undertaking was, thus, not “unilatéral” as it entailed “des engagements réciproques”. 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 “reconnaissance de dette” and was thus enforceable.

11. Now, notwithstanding the fact that Document B is not strictly speaking a “reconnaissance de dette”, the document is not de facto stripped of all its effects. Document B still amounts to a “commencement de preuve par écrit” opening the door to oral evidence of the debt – vide Aumeer v. Mootoo (2008) SCJ 352.

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 “R Square Company Limited”. For

Page 6

these reasons, I find that the Plaintiff has failed to establish his claim against Defendant Nos. 1 and 3.

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’s 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’s 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.

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.

13 May 2026

M. ARMOOGUM Magistrate