NDLI: V. Anantha Raju & Anr Vs. T.m. Narasimhan & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Partnership – Share in the profit and loss
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Partnership – Share in the profit and loss – A partnership firm was constituted in the year 1986 – In 1992 the partnership firm was re- constituted and the plaintiff no.1/appellant No.1 was inducted as a partner with 50% share in profit and loss, along with original partners, i.e., defendant Nos. 1 to 5 – It was however provided in the 1992 Deed, that if plaintiff no.1 fails to bring in an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- as his capital contribution on or before 31.3.1993, his share in the firm would be only to the extent of 10% – The firm was again reconstituted in 1995, whereby the plaintiff no.2, son of the plaintiff no.1 was inducted as partner – As per 1995 Deed, the share of the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 was to be 25% each – Differences arose between the parties in 2004 and a resolution was passed for expulsion of the plaintiffs from the firm – A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for rendition of accounts and for releasing their 50% share in the profits of the firm – Trial Court held that the plaintiffs together are entitled to 10% share in the profits and losses of the partnership firm till their expulsion – Aggrieved, plaintiffs filed an appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed – Before the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs/appellants contended that the trial Court and the High Court erred in holding that they will have only 10% share in the profits and losses of the partnership firm – Whereas, the respondents/defendants contended that 1995 Deed inadvertently mentioned that the plaintiffs will have 25% share each – Held: Once the plaintiffs had specifically contended that the terms of the Deed were amended by the 1995 Deed, and the defendants admitted about the execution of the said document, then the burden to prove mistake in the deed shifted upon the defendants – In 1992 Deed, the share of plaintiff no.1 was specified as 50%, however, it was specifically mentioned that if he fails to bring in an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- as his capital contribution to the firm on or before 31.3.1993, his share would be 10% – In the 1995 Deed, there was no mention regarding such contingency – In view of Section 91 of the Evidence Act, the evidentiary value of the 1995 Deed would stand on a much higher pedestal, as against the oral testimony of the parties – This court is unable to accept the contention of the defendants that the share in the profits and losses of the partnership firm as mentioned in the 1995 deed is inadvertent or a mistake in fact – If it was a mistake or inadvertence, nothing precluded the respondents/defendants from rectifying the same between 1995 and 2004 – The trial court as well as the High Court have erred in holding that the plaintiffs together were entitled to only 10% share – Insofar as the expulsion of the plaintiffs is concerned, the trial court has given sound reasons for upholding the expulsion – No reason to interfere with the same. Evidence Act, 1872 – ss. 91 and 92 – Discussed and explained.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai
Neutral Citation	2021 INSC 669
Petitioner	V. Anantha Raju & Anr
Respondent	T.m. Narasimhan & Ors.
SCR	[2021] 11 S.C.R. 860
Judgement Date	2021-11-26
Case Number	6469

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

V. Anantha Raju & Anr Vs. T.m. Narasimhan & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

G. Narasimhan & Ors. Etc. Vs. T. V. Chokkappa

V. Narasimha Raju Vs. V. Gurumurthy Raju and Others

N. T. Patel and Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras

Shadi Lal Vs. Nagin Chand & Ors.

The Collector of South Satara & Anr. Vs. Laxman Mahadev Deshpande & Ors.

Board of Trustees, Vishakhapatnam Port Trust and Ors. Vs. T.s.n. Raju and Anr.

Mangammal @ Thulasi and Anr. Vs. T.b. Raju and Ors.

Chinnama George and Ors. Vs. N.k. Raju and Anr.

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. M. V. Narasimhan

V. Anantha Raju & Anr Vs. T.m. Narasimhan & Ors.

V. Anantha Raju & Anr Vs. T.m. Narasimhan & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

G. Narasimhan & Ors. Etc. Vs. T. V. Chokkappa

V. Narasimha Raju Vs. V. Gurumurthy Raju and Others

N. T. Patel and Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras

Shadi Lal Vs. Nagin Chand & Ors.

The Collector of South Satara & Anr. Vs. Laxman Mahadev Deshpande & Ors.

Board of Trustees, Vishakhapatnam Port Trust and Ors. Vs. T.s.n. Raju and Anr.

Mangammal @ Thulasi and Anr. Vs. T.b. Raju and Ors.

Chinnama George and Ors. Vs. N.k. Raju and Anr.

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. M. V. Narasimhan

V. Anantha Raju & Anr Vs. T.m. Narasimhan & Ors.