The Supreme Court has dismissed the lawsuit filed by Megh Pillay against Air Mauritius. He claimed damages of Rs 39.3 million after being ejected from his position as CEO in 2016. The judge ruled in favor of reducing his claim according to the clauses of the “Deed of Company Arrangement”.

The Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit filed by Megh Pillay against Air Mauritius (MK), on Monday May 20, 2024. The former CEO of the national aviation company was advised to review the amount of his claim. He claimed damages of Rs 39.3 million after being dismissed from his position as CEO on October 28, 2016. He argued that his dismissal was done “without valid reason” and constituted “a breach of contract”.

Megh Pillay had initially accepted six months' notice pay. He subsequently disputed this amount and returned it to MK. In his complaint, he mentioned a salary of Rs 750,000 per month at MK.

The lawyer for the national aviation company, Me Gilbert Ithier, Senior Counsel, had argued that according to the Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA), the claims of unsecured creditors should be reduced by half. Megh Pillay, through her lawyer, Mr. Gavin Glover, Senior Counsel, contested this reduction by asserting that her name did not appear on the list of unsecured creditors of DOCA.

The decision of Judge Véronique Kwok Yin was rendered in favor of the arguments of Me Gilbert Ithier. She pointed out that Megh Pillay's claim is subject to one of the clauses of the DOCA, notably clause 5.1.3, requiring her to submit a reduced claim. This is due to the fact that his complaint was filed before the company was placed into voluntary administration in April 2020.

The judge ruled: “I therefore find that the provisions relating to the -Unsecured Creditors write off- under Clause 5.1.3 of the DOCA must apply to the plaintiff and that the latter can only make a claim in a reduced amount and it is not for this Court to adjudicate on the original claim. However, I do not propose to dismiss the complainant in view of the specific circumstances of the present case (…) For the above reasons, I non-suit the plaintiff (Megh Pillay)”.

The former CEO speaks of “non-judgment”

“The primary objective of this case was to determine whether my summary and unjustified termination by the employer in October 2016 was 'lawful' or 'unlawful,'” Megh PIllay said. “The Court did not rule on this fundamental point. Faced with this non-judgment, I did not venture to speculate on the reasons behind this position. I am in consultation with my legal advisors and we will examine all options that remain open in my quest for justice,” he adds.

Leave a reply below

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Contact Business

Captcha Code