Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • En exclusivité, les documents signés par l’avouée de l’Etat qui avait demandé le rejet pur et simple de la plainte de Dayal. Dans un souci de confort de lecture, nous annexons aussi à la fin de cet article les plaintes de Raj Dayal.

    Transféré par

    L'express Maurice
    18K vues6 pages
    En exclusivité, les documents signés par l’avouée de l’Etat qui avait demandé le rejet pur et simple de la plainte de Dayal. Dans un souci de confort de lecture, nous annexons aussi à la fin de cet article les plaintes de Raj Dayal.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formats disponibles

    PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    En exclusivité, les documents signés par l’avouée de l’Etat qui avait demandé le rejet pur et simple de la plainte de Dayal. Dans un souci de confort de lecture, nous annexons aussi à la fin de cet article les plaintes de Raj Dayal.

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    18K vues6 pages

    En exclusivité, les documents signés par l’avouée de l’Etat qui avait demandé le rejet pur et simple de la plainte de Dayal. Dans un souci de confort de lecture, nous annexons aussi à la fin de cet article les plaintes de Raj Dayal.

    Transféré par

    L'express Maurice
    En exclusivité, les documents signés par l’avouée de l’Etat qui avait demandé le rejet pur et simple de la plainte de Dayal. Dans un souci de confort de lecture, nous annexons aussi à la fin de cet article les plaintes de Raj Dayal.

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 6
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS In the matter of: Jayeshwur Raj Dayal vs The State of Mauritius Defendant PLEA OF DEFENDANT IN LIMINE LITIS Defendant moves that the Plaint with Summons be dismissed with costs inasmuch as: (a) the Defendant cannot be sued directly in tort; (b) __ the action is time barred; and (Q)__ it discloses no cause of action quoad it. ON THE MERITS Defendant takes note of the contents of paragraphs I to 5 of the Plaint with Summons. 2. In reply to paragraph 6 of the Plaint with Summons, Defendant admits that a Commission of Inquiry was instituted as stated and that Plaintiff was a witness as the Commissioner of Police. Defendant makes no admission to the other averments contained in the said paragraph and puts Plaintiff to the proof thereof. 3. Defendant makes no admission to the contents of paragraph 7 of the Plaint with Summons and puts Plaintiff to the proof thereof. 4, Inreply to paragraph 8 of the Plaint with Summons, Defendant avers that- (@) on 10 October 1997, a Commission of Inquiry was set up by the then President of the Republic to enquire in to contracts for the supply of goods and any other contract, including terms and conditions thereof, awarded from 1992 to 10 October 1997, with or without the approval of the then uw a Central Tender Board, by the Police Depar awarded to a number of companies or persons o (b) on 23 November 1997, Plaintiff was suspended from dug as CO of Police and under section 93 of the Constitution, a tribunal was investigate into his misbehavior and removal from Office. . Defendant takes note of paragraphs 9, 11 and 12 of the Plaint with Summons, . Save and except that Plaintiff was prosecuted for the offences under reference, Defendant denies the other averments contained in paragraph 10 of the Plaint with Summons in their form and tenor and puts Plaintiff to the proof thereof. Defendant is not aware of the contents of paragraph 13 of the Plaint with Summons and therefore makes no admission to the contents thereof. Defendant denies the contents of paragraphs 14 to 16 of the Plaint with Summons in their form and tenor and reiterates the averments made in paragraph 6 above. . Defendant makes no admission to the contents of paragraph 17 of the Plaint with Summons. . Defendant denies the contents of paragraph 18(A), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H) of the Plaint with Summons in their form and tenor and puts Plaintiff to the proof thereof. . Defendant makes no admission to paragraphs 18 (B), (1), (J) to (Q) of the Plaint with Summons and puts Plaintiff to the proof thereof, . In reply to paragraph 19 of the Plaint with Summons, Defendant is not aware of the representations Plaintiff made on 19 February 2007 and denies the other averments made in the said paragraph and puts Plaintiff to the proof thereof. Defendant makes no admission to the contents of paragraph 20 of the Plaint with Summons and puts Plaintiff to the proof thereof. Defendant makes no admission to the contents of paragraph 21(1) to (iii) of the Plaint with Summons (under the heading particulars of damage) and paragraphs 21D to (Vi) (under the heading Moral Prejudice) and puts Plaintiff to the proof thereof. 15. Defendant denies the contents of paragraph 22 of the Plaint with Summons in their form and tenor and puts Plaintiff to the proof thereof. 16. Defendant makes no admission to the contents of paragraph 23 of the Plaint with Summons. 17. Defendant denies being indebted to Plaintiff in the sum claimed or in any other sum whatsoever and move that the Plaint with Summons be dismissed WITH cosTs. Under all legal reservations Dated this 14" day of October 2015. V.Nixsimloo (Ms) Deputy Chief State Attorney & Attomey for Defendant Of Jules Koenig Street, Port Louis. 3] SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS In the matter of: Jayeshwur Raj Dayal Plaintiff vs 1, The Commissioner of Police 2, The State of Mauritius Defendants PLEA OF DEFENDANTS IN LIMINE LITIS Defendants move that the Plaint with Summons be dismissed with costs as inasmuch as- (@) the action is time barred under section 4(1) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act; (b) Plaintiff has failed to give one month’s previous written notice of the action to Defendants and thefore has acted in breach of section 4(2)(a) of the Public Officers’ Protection Act; and (Q it discloses no cause of action against Defendants as Plaintiff has failed to aver “faute lourde” and also no lien de preposition has been established. ON THE MERITS Defendants admit the contents of paragraph 1 of the Plaint with Summons. Defendants are not aware of the contents of paragraph 2 of the Plaint with Summons and therefore make no admission to same. In reply to paragraph 3 of the Plaint with Summons, Defendants denies that Plaintiff's suspension from duty was illegal and unlawful and put Plaintiff to the proof thereof. Defendants otherwise make no admission to the other averments contained in the said paragraph and put Plaintiff to the proof thereof. Defendants make no admission to the contents of paragraph 4 of the Plaint with Summons and put Plaintiff to the proof thereof. 1 5. Defendants deny the contents of paragraph 5 of the Plaint with Summons in their form and tenor and aver that- (a) at the time of the commissioning of the Regimental Museum in July 1993 no inventory of equipment and items found on the premises thereof was made; (b) there was therefore no record that the items which Plaintiff claimed to belong to him was in fact displayed in the museum and actually belonged to him; (©) following Plaintiff's suspension from duty, information was obtained from the police sergeant in charge of the Regimental Museum from July 1993 to September 1994 to the effect that there was a framed certificate from the International Biographical Association which belonged to Plaintiff, (d) the said certificate and a photo of Plaintiff were retrieved from the Museum and handed over to Plaintiff but he refused to take them as according to Plaintiff, there were other items allegedly belonging to him, namely two world maps, two wooden dodo and a papyrus frame which had been displayed in the Museum; and (c) after the closure of the Regimental Museum to the public in 1997, a list of all equipment and items found therein was drawn up and the items referred to in paragraph (d) above were not amongst the items on the list. 6. Defendants take note of the contents of paragraph 6 of the Plaint with Summons. 7. Defendants make no admission to the contents of paragraph 7 of the Plaint with Summons. 8. In reply to the contents of paragraphs 8 and 10 of the Plaint with Summons, Defendants aver that- (a) an inventory list was produced by the then Police Sergeant Bulloram in the course of proceedings held in 1998 before a Commission of Inquiry; (b) it was only on 19 November 2008 that Plaintiff made a request that his personal belongings which were in his office at the time he was suspended from duty on 23 November 1997 be remitted back to him and a fresh inventory list had to be drawn up; (c) the handing over exercise took place on 21 November 2008 and fourteen boxes, including 6 boxes with itemized articles were handed over to Plaintiff and he was requested to verify same; (@ Plaintiff however did not make any inventory of the items received but made a summary inspection stating that he would sign an acknowledgement after he would have verified the items; and (©) on 22 November 2008, Plaintiff called at the Police Headquarters and handed over a letter dated 21 November 2008 wherein he complained inter alia that the list of items which was drawn up by the then Sergeant Bulloram following an inventory carried out on 26 November 1997 and produced as evidence in the course of proceedings before the Commission of Inquiry on 15 July 1998 and the list of items handed over to him on 21 November 2008 did not tally. 9. In reply to paragraph 9 of the Plaint with Summons, Defendants deny that the suspension of Plaintiff from duty was illegal and unlawful and make no admission to the other averments contained in the said paragraph and put Plaintiff to the proof thereof. Ss . Defendants make no admission to the averments made in paragraphs 11 and 13 of the Plaint with Summons and put Plaintiff to the proof thereof. 1. Defendants take note of the contents of paragraph 12 of the Plaint with Summons. 2. Defendants denies the contents of paragraph 14 of the Plaint with Summons in their form and tenor and put Plaintiff to the proof thereof. 13. Defendants deny being liable to Plaintiff in the sum claimed or in any other sum. whatsoever and move that the Plaint with Summons be dismissed WITH cosTs. Under all legal reservations Dated this 14" day of October 2015. ‘V

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi