You are on page 1of 11

Business Law Case-I

Case: Compensation should be
received for breach of the Contract
of Employment

Mr. Modraj Sharma vs. Mr. Rajeev Gajurel.

Rajeev. He resigned from the post on 27-02-2007 which was before the date of discharge of the ‘Service Bond’ formed during employment against which Everest Bank launched a suit to claim the compensation. . Case Highlights: Mr. regarding his employment which specified that he would render his services to the bank for a duration of 4 years (from 24-07-2003 to 24-07-2007) If he failed to fulfill the terms he would be liable to pay the bank a compensating sum of Rs two lakhs which had been clearly stated in the Service Bond and signed by the Mr. Rajeev Gajurel On 24th July 2003 entered into an agreement (Service Bond) with Everest Bank Ltd.

the untimely resignation by the party . Claims of the Plaintiff: 1) The rival party agreed to compensate the sum expressively at the time of contract formation alongside the fact that he signed the service order willingly and with his own consent. The Defendant also breached the terms of the contract and as per Contract Act 2056 Sec 13 he is liable for compensation. 2) It is the right of the Bank to claim the compensation. 3) The rival party during his course of employment had undergone various training programs which as a matter of fact must be compensated for .

Implying that he was a temporary staff . Issues of the Defendant: 1) The defendant claims that the contract regarding his terms of employment was created without his consent 2) The terms of employment stated that the defendant was supposed to render his services to the organization for a period of Four years.

The district court based of the incompetence of the evidence provided by the Plaintiff’s based on Contract Act 2056 Sec 2(a) and Sec 13 passed on a decision that the defendant might not be held liable for the compensation of the sum of Rs Two lakhs. .Decisions Made 1) Decision made by the District Court: The hearing of the case was held in Kathmandu’s District Court.

Then a Claim after due date needed be dismissed and error full Judgment as per contract act was delivered. . The Plaintiff then filed a letter that the Judgment should be reevaluated.Case Contd Application Letter to Appellate Court: There is no explanation on the claim of Plaintiff regarding how the evaluation of compensation of incomplete performance was done.

In the following case it was held that: 1) The defendant had with his free consent hence the defendant for his untimely resignation leading to the breach of the contract which caused an injury to the Plaintiff whereby the rival Party has to pay the compensation. Decision made by the Appellate Court: The Appellate court of Patan was where the Second Hearing of the case had taken. Rajeev Gajurel cannot be recovered. . 2) The additional charges for receiving the justice could be claimed by The Plaintiff against the Defendant Rs Six thousand eight hundred and fifty However additional damages incurred by the Everest bank for training Mr. Sec 82 and Sec 83 of the Contract Act 2056. This decision was based on Sec 74. The appellate court based its decision that the Employer had the right to form the terms and conditions of the contract and it was the Employee who had the right to either accept or reject the terms.

he must compensate in return to the victim Plaintiff. . Since he failed to do so. Additionally. the Supreme Court stated that the defendant entered into the contract of his own will. Mr. The untimely resignation of the defendant. he signed the contract as well which was enough of a proof that he would abide by the contractual terms and conditions. Rajeev Gajurel has caused a breach of the service bond signed by him which stated that he was to remain in the bank and provide his service for 4 years.Decision Made by the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court’s decision favored the Claims of the Plaintiff.

Ratio of the Judgment Made: The Defendant had signed and Employment Term for four years and had breached the so. his activity of untimely resignation can be taken that he violated the very contract’s condition he agreed to and as per the provisions for breach of the contract signed he must pay the compensation.signed contract by not rendering his services for the term duration The Defendant upon entering the service had been clarified of the service terms and conditions. .

Held Thus the decision was held in the favor of the Plaintiff. . the Rival Party the Defendant should be held liable for the Compensation There occurred a breach of Contract terms and not fulfilling one’s contractual obligations (untimely resignation before the discharge period) which has given the Plaintiff the Right to Claim Compensation.

CASE SUMMARY !!!! Any Queries????? .