Lapche Logo

Lapche Beta

Find cases.

Understand faster.

Argue better.

Now with Lapche, our most advanced legal intelligence engine for Nepal Supreme Court research.

Facts & ratio of Shankar Prasad v Nepal Bank (NKP 2060)
ADB Nepalgunj v Jagdamba Prasad Gupta — facts & najir
Mittal Tea v Inland Revenue — summary & decision date
List Supreme Court judgments on Immigration Act
Banking law cases decided by Supreme Court (10 cases)
Facts & ratio: Piyush Bahadur Amatya v NRB (2064)
Shivaram Timalsina v RBB — decision year?
Rajendra Kunwar v Rastriya Banijya Bank — related laws
Summarize a Supreme Court case in Nepal
Find precedents on tax disputes in Nepal
Cases related to property disputes in Nepal
Latest Supreme Court decisions on banking law
Explain najir in Nepali legal context
Search criminal law cases with similar facts
Compare two Supreme Court judgments
Purpose Built AI

Built for Nepal’s legal system — not adapted to it.

Lapche is an advanced legal intelligence engine engineered to help legal professionals and students navigate Nepal Supreme Court case law. Find relevant judgments, understand complex rulings, and extract vital principles in seconds.

  • Search by meaning, not just keywords
  • Instant case summaries, facts & ratio decidendi
  • Find relevant precedents faster
  • Built for lawyers, law students, and researchers

"Lapche (ल्याप्चे) means fingerprint — every case has a unique identity."

Lapche Engine
Facts & ratio of Piyush Bahadur Amatya v Nepal Rastra Bank (2064)

Here is the full breakdown of Piyush Bahadur Amatya v. Nepal Rastra Bank, Decision No. ७८७२, NKP 2064, Vol. 8 (2064.1.21):

Case Overview

Decision No.७८७२NKP Year/Vol2064, Vol. 8CourtSupreme Court of Nepal, Joint BenchPetitionerPiyush Bahadur Amatya (Deurali Enterprises)RespondentsNepal Rastra Bank & Ors.

Key Facts

  • Deurali Enterprises secured joint financing of Rs. 31 crore from Nepal Bank Ltd. and Rastriya Banijya Bank.
  • When tourism slumped, the syndicate demanded 25% of accrued interest within 15 days or legal action would follow.
  • Following a failure to meet the condition, the syndicate unilaterally blacklisted the petitioner.
  • The petitioners challenged the blacklisting as arbitrary and sought loan rescheduling.

Key Ratio & Holdings

1. No Fundamental Right to Loan or Rescheduling (Prakarana 46)

No person has a fundamental or legal right to obtain a loan from a bank. Loan rescheduling and restructuring are purely discretionary bank facilities — not rights. Courts cannot compel a bank to reschedule a loan.

2. Doctrine of Binding Precedent (Prakarana 52–53)

For coordinate benches: if a subsequent bench disagrees with an earlier ruling, it must escalate the matter to a larger bench to overrule. Decisions that ignore relevant law are per incuriam.

3. Interim Relief & Balance of Convenience (Prakarana 65)

When issuing interim orders, courts must consider the nature of the right, irreparable loss to the opposing party, and the balance of convenience between both parties.

4. Blacklisting of a Defaulter (Prakarana 71)

Placing a defaulter on the blacklist was a lawful exercise of legal rights. No fundamental or legal right of the petitioner was violated.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the banks' actions and refused to compel rescheduling, affirming that these are discretionary facilities.

Purpose-built for Nepal’s legal research

Experience the fastest and most highly accurate way to navigate case laws.
Move past traditional keyword searching.

Smart Case Search

Search Supreme Court cases by meaning, not just keywords.

Instant Case Understanding

Get facts, ratio decidendi, and summaries instantly.

Precedent Discovery

Find relevant cases and legal connections in seconds.

Context-Aware Answers

Ask legal questions and get structured responses.

Structured Legal Output

Clean outputs with facts, issues, decisions, and reasoning.

Built for Nepal

Designed specifically for Nepal Supreme Court case law.

Learn law through real cases

Explore Supreme Court judgments, understand legal principles, and build stronger reasoning through structured case analysis.

Case Breakdowns

Understand facts, issues, and decisions in seconds.

Legal Concepts

Learn doctrines like ratio decidendi and precedent through real cases.

Case Connections

Discover how cases are linked and build deeper legal understanding.

Ask & Learn

Ask questions and learn legal reasoning interactively.

Concept BreakdownRatio Decidendi

Annapurna Hotel v. Department of Labor

The IssueCan an employer indefinitely suspend employees without a formal hearing?
The Principle (Ratio)The Court ruled that suspension is an administrative measure, not a substantive punishment. Prolonged suspension without due process violates the right to natural justice.

Start your legal research with Lapche

Find cases, understand judgments, and discover precedents in seconds.

Try with real Supreme Court cases