Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Laina Rawat Réclame Une Injonction Contre André Bonieux Et Mushtaq Osman

    Uploaded by

    Defimediagroup Ldmg
    5K views8 pages
    Laina Dawood Rawat, actionnaire de la Bramer Banking Corporation Ltd (BBCL), a juré un affidavit en Cour suprême mercredi 20 mai pour réclamer une injonction contre les deux administrateurs judiciaires, André Bonieux et Mushtag Oosman

    Original Title

    Laina Rawat réclame une injonction contre André Bonieux et Mushtaq Osman

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Laina Dawood Rawat, actionnaire de la Bramer Banking Corporation Ltd (BBCL), a juré un affidavit en Cour suprême mercredi 20 mai pour réclamer une injonction contre les deux administrateurs judiciaires, André Bonieux et Mushtag Oosman

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5K views8 pages

    Laina Rawat Réclame Une Injonction Contre André Bonieux Et Mushtaq Osman

    Uploaded by

    Defimediagroup Ldmg
    Laina Dawood Rawat, actionnaire de la Bramer Banking Corporation Ltd (BBCL), a juré un affidavit en Cour suprême mercredi 20 mai pour réclamer une injonction contre les deux administrateurs judiciaires, André Bonieux et Mushtag Oosman

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 8
    4 ; are IN THe sueREMe CourT oF maurMus Lo x (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) fine matter of E LAINA DAWOOD RAWAT, residing ot no. 26, Domaine de Bele Vue, Mapou APPLICANT vs ‘Mr, ROBERT MARIE ANDRE BONIEUX, Senior Pariner PwC, 2, Mr, MUSHTAQ M.O.N. OOSMAN, Pariner PwC, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC}, 18. Cybercity, Ebsne, Hersinacting acting in their capacity of receivers of Co-Respondent RESPONDENTS: the presence of: Bramer Banking Corporation Limited (In Receivership), c/o PwC. 18, Cybercity & (CO-RESPONDENT |, LAINA DAWOOD RAWAT, residing ai 0.26. Domaine de Belle Yue, Mopou. bearer of Maurition Passport No. 1060448, E SOLEMN AFFIRMATION As LIM. AND SAY: 1. Lam a shareholder of the Bramer Banking Corporation Lid now in Receivership as per my Central Depository Settiemen! Co, Lic [CDS) statement of account as shareholder at Annex 1. 2. On 27 August 2008 the Bank of Mauritius issued a Banking License (Annex 2) to Bramer Bonk Corporation Limited {hereatter referred fo as the BBCL] under $7 of the Banking Act 2004 to conduc! banking business in Mauritius. Th - t 3. Co-Respondent is the 8ramer Banking Corporation Ltd nowin Receivership. 4, On 02 April 2015 the Bonk of Mauritius revoked! the banking license of the BBCI under $17 of the Banking Act and appointed the Respondents Nos. 1 & 2, (Messrs André Bonieux ‘and Mushtaq Cosman), os Receivers pursuant fo § 75 of the Banking Act 2004 fo Co- Respondent. Events Prior to the Revocation Applicant avers that immediately after general elections of Decemiber 2014, BECL faced unforeseen and unprecedented withdrawals. Mony govemment related insitulions, ministries and para-statal bodies, and a few high-profile clients withdrew their money from BBCL which coincided with the new regime coming into office. 5, | very believe from reliable information that the present Prime Minister, the present Minisier of ICT and! his wife. the Minisier of Good Gavernance, and the First Deputy Governor of the Bank of Mauris. were amengst those high-profile clients 7, The fist withcrawal slaried en 15 Cecember 2 elections, SICOM witharew its savings amouniin five milion pounds sterling was made by NPE 55 than one week after general fo Rs.30m and on early encashmeni of 8 These Unexpected withdrawals which were in ex effect on the liquidity ratio. 85 OF RS. L.Bbilion had a detimental Page fof 8 20, Afier ihese withcrawals BBCL cid not receive ony ictual Government for completely ignored, Alter carying out onsite examination 2015, the Bank of Mewritius. oy tel of alleged issues in the running of {o inject acicttional capital in ihe sum of Rs3.5bn as folows. Rs 35 visits between 22 Januar Hci dated 27 February 201§ (Annex 3) the affairs of BBCL. Bank of Meu 5.300m by 30 June 2015 and the balance by 31 December 2018 88CL after having investigated March 2015 (Annex 4), BECL asked for a copy of however the latter never communicated copy given more time in view of the amount fo be inje cll these issues, Bonk of Mauritius cid not reply to BBCL's letter dated 16 Merch 2015, Seeing no response trom Bank of fi 2015 (Annex §) explaining ar ¥ invitation to bid for banking services the coming exercise thus BECL was 1aised a number itis further asked BBCL, Orn by 31 March 2015, rebutted these allegations by letter 14 the on-site visit of the Bank of Mauritius, of same. 88Ci further prayed that it be *cted and called for further consultation, Mauritius, BBCL sent Bank of Mauritius a letter dated 24 Problems of BBCL with ths support of Bank of Mouritius By [etter dated 25 March 2 Ro! accede fo iis reques!. BBCL drew up a further letter on 25 March 201 feconsider its position. Since it was altecdly close of Bonk of Mauritius on 24 March 20) By letter dated 26 March 2015 iAnnex ex 6) Bank of Mauri 15, incl putting forwards ii jolulions for solving the liquidity ' informed BECL that it could Inex 7} requesting Bank of Mauritius to business day, the said letter reachea LBank of Mauritius informed B8CL that it could nol accede foils request without any explanation or alernalive soloione 8y letter dated 27 Moreh 201 its discretionary powers under $.6 of inex 9) BECL further requested Bank of Maurtilius fo use the Bank of Mautitius Act 2004 fo assist in the curent sivallon, However, Bank of Mauritius did ol reply 10 BBCLs letter dicted aan March 2015, On or about 31 Maren Gietier (Annexi0) fo BBCL with c of Mauritius. in the said lelier BAI Co (Mauri corporates that it would invest an amount ‘pies sent to requiatory. corporate and shareholders’ approvar" (On the sare day, 31 Merch 201 ck letter (Annex 11 Of the Republic of mauritius with copies sent 10 Governance respectively. The said letter contrm: Position to inject funds into BBCI Mounts, Sulstier dated! 2 April 2015, Bank of Mauritius wots 10 BECL i makina a special accommadati ¥p fo 30 April 2015 {hereafter « 13) 15_British American investment C uanquth, Prime Minister ihe Honourable Sie Ans L. as per the re ion towards the latter by 2c) 19 28 letter of Pave 2 of 8 915. alter a rexquest fom BBCL. BAI Co [Mourius) Lie addressed! Financial Services Commission and to Bank ius) Lid informed BBCL of RS350M in BBCL “sui illus] Lich a Ne Minisiers of Finance and Geos ‘ed that BAI Co (Mauritius) Lidl was in a ‘quirements pul forward by the Bank of informing it that it would be Y granting an Overnight Fciity 2 9 jociation - Annex 23. 24, 25. 26. 3h The Revocation ‘On or about 2% Apri 2015, 6 Mautiius posted o communiaus cated 02 Ari 2015 (Annex 13) on its official website oy os? eu: informing the public at large. inter of, that it hed revoked the banking license of BBCL pursuant to $.17 of the Banking ‘Act 2004, In the some said communiqué, Bonk of Mauritius appointed Messs André Bonieux ond. Mushtag Cosman {Respondents nos.) and 2) as Receivers pusuant to S 75 of the Banking Act 2004. On 3 Apiil 2015, BCL received « letter irom Bonk of Mauritius dated 2 ApH! 2015 notifying BBCL pursuant to S17(2) of the Banking Act 2004 of ils aforesaid decision fo revoke the banking license of B8CL. The said leiter of notification is herewith annexed os Annex14. Actions taken by BBCL Post Notification Following receipt of the letter of nolilication, by letter dated 8 Apml 2015 (Annex 15) BCL made representations under $17(3) of ine Banking Act 2004 through its legal represenialivas, fo the Bank of Mousitivs. Bonk of Mauritius had a stalutory obligation to consider the said representations and notify BBCL of ils final decision within 14 days (pursuant to $.17(4) of the Barking Act 2004) In its letter dated 8 April 2015 [Annex 14), Bank of Mauritius stated “before we consicier your representations. it would be appreciated if you could forward a copy of the resolution of the board of diectors of BSCL authoring you fo make representations on behalf cnd in the name of BBCL by naan fomorrow 9 April 2015" By letter detect OPApril 2015(Annex 17} BECL sent ci reply to Bank of Mauritius who replied by letter dated 10 April 2015 (Annex 18) bearing reference “RE: Representations uncer section 17(3) of the Banking Act {"The Act")" gave its final decision by maintaining its decision dated 2 April 2015 by which Ii revoked the banking license of BBCL. Contrary to ifs statutory obligation Bank of Mauritius foled fo consider the representations made by BCL. As a result of its letter of special accommodation Bank of Maus created legitimate expectations in BBCL ond insiead of sevoking the 83CL's banking license, Bank of ‘Moutitius was in duty bound to consult with B&CL before revoking its clecision to extend Ine overnight facilily unl 30 Apri 2015. Bank of Mautiius was in duly Bound to consull with BBCL betore revoking its banking license after having in the course of the some doy U2 Apiil 2015 sent the letter of 02 Apri - special cecommodation far Overnight Facility extending overnight facility which created legitimate expectations. Bank of Mautitius's decision {o alter iis undertaking and requirements within a few hours fon the same day. 02 April 2015. giving BBCL a special accammodation of 30 days and revoking same withoul any reason, does not amount to sound administrative practice ‘and does nol show any chjestive and rational considerations on the part of the Bank of Martius contrary Io 5.¢0 91 the Be ae) The decision by Bank of Mauris to agpaint Respondents nos.| and 2 as receivers before the grace period was over, amounts to an abuse of process and authority ond was not in the best interest of the Company. Of 3. 38. 38, 4 42 43 fank of Mausiius had no kiwiui basis to appoint Respondent No.1 and 2 without allowing time for fhe financial insfitulion BBCL to make representation or consider same once such representations could have been made. Such aciion is an improper delegation of powers by Bonk of Mauritius ond contrary fo the standard of goed administration as set ‘ut in $.62 of te Bonk of Mauritius Act 2004. there is no legal requirement for legal advisors of BBCL to produce 9 boord resolution, Furinermore. Bank of Mautliivs had oieady stated that it would be considering the Tepresentations in the said | quest by Bank of Mauritius for a board resolution thos beyond the scope of the duties imposed on Bank of Mauritius pursuant fo s.17(4) oF ‘he Banking Act 2004. Bonk of Mauritius acted uilra vires by interpreting and forcing its interpretation onto BECL in respect of who can make representations on behalf of financial insitution, ia Ihe present cose, BCL. pursuant fo 5.1713} of the Banking Act 2004. Bank of Mauritius acted Sireasonably. unjustly and unfaity by not considering the representations, which ithad a statutory obligation to co. Bonk of Mauritius has acted in breach of the rules of natural justice and in breach of BBCL's legitimate expectations by revoking BBC's banking ficense as fully set out above. The statutory fequiements contcined at $17 of the Bonking Act ore mandatory and not mere iechnicalties, They constitute an essential port of the system of checks and balances which the Banking Act imposes on the actions of the Bank of Mauritius to safeguard ihe interests of clients of financial institutions and of the public ot large. Moreover, the patent inconsistencies between the reasons given for the revocation of BCLs banking license and the real chain of evenis known to ail parties concermed and fo the public ot large. incicate bad foith on Ihe part of the Bank of Mauaivs and together with the citcumstances heretofore described. It is BBCL’s contention that the Bank of Mauritius is disguising the Ive cause behind its action. ‘At the material time, that is in the night of 02 Aprils the Bank of Mauritius did not have genuine concerns of risks and iiquidity of the BBCL and risks for the interest of the depositors and the public. |At the matteriat time Bank of Mauilivs did not have legitimate grounds or reasons for fevoting BCL's license, Bank of Mauritius has acted in breach of the rules of natural justice ond in breach of BBC's legitimate exaectations of the special accommodation Thal was given before the said revocation on the sane day. There are genuine conceins thot a ful picture of the events feading to and surrounding ihe revocation of the license as well as the endeavours of BBCL to redress the situation was net brought before the Board of Directors, of the Bank of Mautitius Lam advised ond verily beiave that the clecision of the Bonk of Mauritius as well os is decisionmaking process 10 revoke the Banking License of BBCL (ond appoint receivers Respandents nos.1 ane 2} to Co-Respondent is contrary to Low. tainted with procecural imeroptiety and irequianly improper motive arbitrary, iraional unfair, agoinst the Wiles of neural justice. amounls #9 an abuse of power Gnd is grossly unreasonable in the: circumstances Page 4a 3 The National 3 n the National Commercial Bonk On ar about 19 Apa wos incorporated, On 10 Ap@il 2015 the Bank of Mauris issued a banking license to the NCB Respondent No.2 made on application to the Prime Minster's Otfice for a certificate authorizing him os the Receiver of Co-Respondent to transfer the assels of Co- Respondent which was giainled an 10 April 2085. On 1 Apiil 2015. the day after the licensing of the NCB Respondents nos.| and 2, acting 65 Receivers 10 Co-Responcieni. ilagaly lransfered the assets of Co-Respondent to the newly cradled State-owned bank the National Commercial Bank [NC8} for the nominal sum of Rel with the unwarranled and unlawiul approval of the Prime Minister ond under his signature of the file deed transcribed in Vol, 201504/000921 ot Annex 19. ‘The immoveadle properties and thet respeciive value as per the title deed transcribed in Vol. 201504/000921that were cllegecly "sold, made over, transfered, assigned. Nos. pion of Properly “| Walue in Mauition Rupees 1 House, Ebene, lois2.34, 14-22, 106119 | Rs, 198, 670, 000.- 2 ne, lols 5,23, 24-26 120-125 | Rs. 101, 130, 000. 3_| Coudan Peninsula asloises TRs. 4_[3.752m# Port Louis __ [Rs 5 | 25 Pope Hennessy Sireet, Rs. | & area =x [Podiigue Bs, : 7 | For Lovie, Place Armes (oscusied by NEB)_| Re. 000, 000. (78-[253.25m? Pamplemousses. Notre Dame IRs. 208, 854.65) [9 7253.25m? Famplemousses Re. 853, 332.42 10 249.28m? Coromandel Rs.2 638, 328.12 11_| 295m? Rlacg, Plaine de Gersiany Rs. 598, 463.49 12___|190m? Poles 13 | 190m" Pail: 187, 962.26 4 | 72.3ime 461,817.35 (1s | sa 16 Site 17 [immeuble Damrey Loi LA (1g | 725m? GP, Si Huber [719 [or Lous, Veloce Street [720 Taps A = Q_18osAacq _ (On Monday 13 April 2015. the NCB started operations with the assets of Co-Respondent. Ai the maielial tims Respondents nos.1 and 2 verily knew that this buying price of MRU | [ene Mauritian rupee) does not fecresent the real market vale of the immoveable properties being iransfemed and is ridiculously below such real market value. Respondents nos.1 and 2 oi Respondent. fo ihe NCB and kept 20% of assets with decision has not been macs known 19 the shew cided 10 move 80% of the accounls operated at espondent. The rafionale of this and nt holeters. Respondents nos. cine 2 unfciy end nyystiy uismissed many of the employees of Co- ondent, & 58. Respondents nos.2 and 3 have no! acted in the bes inforest of ihe Company nor have iney ocled fatty or with cue diligence in the management ol the affairs of Respondent ro.l 54 Respondent No.l and No.2 being experienced accountants are aware of the duties imposed upon them as receivers and were fully aware they were acting in breach of the

    You might also like