Everest Bank Ltd Vs. Rajeev Gajurel (D.no.

9165, Volume: 5, NKP: 2071)

Prosecutor: Pramod Raj Sharma on behalf of Everest Bank Ltd.
Respondent: Rajeev Gajurel
Fact of the case:
Respondent Rajiv Bastola expressed his desire to serve in Everest Bank. And it is contracted that
if he does not serve in the bank for 4 years he will be responsible to pay Rs.2 lakh as a
compensation to the bank. Herein, the opponent has been trained by the bank by providing
various trainings related to banking activities. Therefore, while respondent has to serve for 4
years from the date of appointment from 25th July 2003 to 24th July 2007, he resigned on 13th
February 2007. So, Everest bank complained that respondent is responsible to pay Rs. 2,00,000
as per the section 86 of the Contract Act 2056.
Respondent’s Claim:
Respondent claimed that he was appointed as an employee on July 25, 2003. Before the date, he
cannot be called an employee of the bank. Since he has worked as a permanent employee for 3
years and 7 months, as per the rule 2(c) and rule 3 of Everest Bank Ltd staff service rule 2054
and section 3, 4, 7 of the Labor Act 2048, no agreement can be applied in his case and he must
be freed from the complaint.
Court’s ruling:
Courts ruled that looking at the contractual agreement, it appears that the contract was signed on
24th July 2003. While the defendant was appointed by bank after 1 day, it is seen that he signed
the contract without taking office. Therefore, court herein rules that as per the staff service rules
of staff service rules of Everest Bank Ltd 2054 B.C. such agreements cannot be categorized as
the contract. Herein, the plea of the plaintiff is insufficient.
High Court upheld the same decision.
In contrast, Supreme court states that as per the section 34(1) of the Evidence Act 2031, if a
person by word or covers, causes a person to believe that something is so, or allows him to do
something he must not deny that the thing is not so or was not. Likely, when the appellant gave a
service to the respondent Rajiv Gajurel it is seen that the respondent did not even take the hint
that respondent did not agree to the said agreement, therefore the court rejected the decision
made by the two lower courts and hence made the respondent to pay the compensation of 2 lakh.
Analysis:
In the above explained case, supreme court had clearly mentioned that once an individual had
entered into a contract s/he cannot the deny the fact mentioned in the contract. One cannot
declare a contract void without any basis. Herein, as per the Section 517 of National Civil Code
some of the factors that makes a contract void are as follows:
 Contract retaining from doing marriage, business.
  Contract retaining legal rights of any person.
 Contract retaining anyone from in join the facilities given by government.
 Contract concluded contrary to law.
 Contract against public morality, public disorder, or public interest.
 Contract impossible to perform.
 Contract performed by incompetent person.
 Contract with illegal purpose.
 Contract done through mistake.
 Contract where the parties are not clear about the terms and condition of contract.
Therefore, in the above-mentioned case none of the factors stated above are matched.
Meanwhile, just on the basis that defendant was appointed by bank after 1 day of signing the
contract cannot be taken as a strong factor to declare a contract void. Herein, for a contract to be
void, there must be presence of any of the above mentioned factors.

Aakriti Bakhadyo
Green zone