HAMMAD AHMED versus ABDUL MAJEED AND ORS.
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 437, Supreme Court of India, 2019
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
437
HAMMAD AHMED
v.
ABDUL MAJEED AND ORS.
(Miscellaneous Application Nos.883-884 of 2019)
In
(Civil Appeal Nos.3382-3383 of 2019)
      JULY 09, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Succession – To the Office of Chief Mutawalli – Dispute
between the parties in C.A. No.3382 & 3383 of 2019 was as to who
should discharge the duties of Chief Mutawalli of Hamdard
Laboratories (India) – Present applications filed by the appellant-
plaintiff inter alia claiming that Supreme Court in its judgment dated
April 3, 2019 while deciding C.A. No. 3382 & 3383 of 2019 ([2019]
6 SCR 402), upheld the appointment of the appellant as Chief
Mutawalli but still respondent no.1 illegally continues to assert that
both the respondent nos.1 and 2 are in joint management along
with the appellant – Held: There is an inadvertent mistake in the
judgment dated April 3, 2019 ([2019] 6 SCR 402) when the Court
said that the parties will additionally continue with the arrangements
arrived at in respect of the management of the Hamdard in terms of
resolution dated April 28, 2015 – Resolution was in respect of two
bank accounts of Hamdard in the Corporation Bank only and was
not even remotely connected with the management of the Hamdard
– Word ‘management’ in Para 59 of the judgment dated April 3,
2019 ([2019] 6 SCR 402), substituted with the word ‘banking
operations’– Further, Single Bench has not granted relief to the
appellant to operate bank accounts, as claimed – Supreme Court
vide
judgment dated April 3, 2019 ([2019] 6 SCR 402), has not
granted the relief which was not granted by the Single Bench but it
was ordered additionally to continue with the arrangements
voluntarily arrived at in respect of two bank accounts of Hamdard
on April 28, 2015 – In view of the order in the present applications,
the Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 589 & 590 of 2019 are dismissed
– Further, with reference to the direction sought in I.A No. 90248 of
2019, as to who will represent Hamdard and depose on its behalf in
various criminal proceedings pending in different Courts against
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 437
                                                  437
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
438
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
the appellant, it is open to the applicant to seek appropriate relief
in the Civil Suit pending as the present claim is beyond the scope of
the appeals filed and decided by Supreme Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous Application
Nos. 883-884 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3382-3383 of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.2018 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in FAO (OS) Nos. 278 and 280 of 2017
With
Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 589-590 of 2019 in Civil Appeal
Nos. 3382-3383 of 2019.
Kailash Vasdev, Mukul Rohatgi, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Advs.,
Shreyans Singhvi, Ms. Ekta Mehta, Umrao Singh Rawat, Ms. Jaikriti S.
Jadeja, Pawan Upadhyay, Simran Mehta, Saket Sikri, Sarvjit Pratap Singh,
P.K. Behera, Ms. Swati Smita Pati, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay,
Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Sudarsh Menon, Ms. Nimisha S. Menon, Devang
Parmar, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Order of the Court was passed by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NOS. 883-884 OF
2019
The present applications are filed by the appellant-plaintiff claiming
the following reliefs:
A)  An order restraining the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from interfering
with the working and management of Hamdard Laboratories
(India) and its allied institutions in any manner whatsoever;
B)  An order directing to respondent No. 1 to forthwith counter-sign
all payment advices prepared by the Finance Department of
Hamdard Laboratories India;
C) An order
permitting to applicant/appellant to release all payments
under the payment advices prepared by the Finance Department
of Hamdard Laboratories India in the event of the respondent
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
439
No. 1 neglecting/refusing to counter-sign and returning the
advices within a day from the date of receipt of the payment
advices from the Finance Department of Hamdard Laboratories
India.
2. The appellant has sought the above directions, inter alia, on
the ground that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are creating impediment in the
working and management of Hamdard Laboratories (India) (for short
‘Hamdard’).  It is alleged that this Court in its judgment dated April 3,
2019 has upheld the appointment of appellant as Chief Mutawalli but still
respondent No. 1 wrongfully and illegally continues to assert that both
the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are in joint management along with the
appellant.  The genesis of such claim is the direction of this Court in para
59 of the judgment dated April 3, 2019, which reads as under:
“59. Thus, in view of above the appeals are allowed.  The order
passed by learned Division Bench on 27.11.2018 is set aside and
that of the order of learned Single Bench on 25.10.2017 is
restored.  The parties will additionally continue with the
arrangements arrived at in respect of the management of the
Hamdard in terms of the resolution dated 28.04.2015.”
3. The appellant filed I.A. No. 5860 of 2017 before the Delhi
High Court in Civil Suit (OS) No. 211 of 2017 claiming the following
reliefs:
A) To release the salaries and other dues of all the Mutawallis of
Hamdard (including Defendant No. 4) from September, 2016 till
date.
B) Direct all the banks as
stated in para no. 2 of the application, to
allow the plaintiff to operate accounts maintained by Hamdard
as sole signatory in his capacity as Chief Mutawalli.
D) An order directing the defendants No. 1 and 2 to handover the
password of the domain name www.hamdard.com,
www.hamdard.in and www.hamdardindia.com and its e-mail
server password to the plaintiff.
D) Direct defendants No. 1 and 2 to disclose and handover the ERP
(Enterprise Resource Planning) Admin Control Password.
HAMMAD AHMED  v.  ABDUL MAJEED AND ORS.
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
440
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
4. However, the learned Single Bench in its order dated October
25, 2017 passed the following order in the said I.A.:
“47.  In view of observations above, the defendants No. 1
and 
2 
are 
directed to 
handover 
the 
password
of the domain name www.hamdard.com, www.hamdard.in and
www.hamdardindia.com and its e-mail server password to the
plaintiff.  They shall also disclose and handover the ERP
(Enterprise Resource Planning) Admin Control Password.”
5. Thus, the prayer of the appellant for direction to allow the plaintiff
to operate bank accounts maintained by Hamdard as sole signatory in its
capacity as Chief Mutawalli was not granted.
6. The resolution dated April 28, 2015, as mentioned in the final
order of this Court, was passed soon after Wakif Mutawalli died on
March 19, 2015.  The resolution dated April 28, 2015 was passed in the
meeting of Board of Trustees while considering a proposal to operate
two bank accounts of Hamdard in the Corporation Bank, Asaf Ali Road
Branch, Delhi.  By such resolution, one member of each of the two
groups could sign in combination for operation of the bank accounts in
the Corporation Bank.  One of the conditions in the resolution is that the
resolution can be rescinded if a notice in writing is given to the Bank by
any of the trustees of the Trust.
7.  The argument of the appellant is that Abdul Majeed has
revoked the resolution which is made out from the electronic mail sent
on
December 12, 2018.  Therefore, the arrangement in respect of
banking operations arrived at between the two groups is no longer
available.  It is contended that Chief Mutawalli-the appellant has the
right to operate bank accounts in terms of Wakf Deed of 1948 as amended
by 1973 Deed.  Therefore, the respondents be restrained from
interfering in the working of Hamdard.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the
respondents, submitted that revocation of the resolution was in the
context of payment of Rs. 40 crores made in four days after the
judgment of Division Bench of the High Court on November 27, 2018.
It is contended that exclusive right to operate bank accounts was claimed
by the plaintiff but not granted by the learned Single Bench and that this
Court has restored the order of the learned Single Bench of the High
Court while allowing the appeals filed by the appellant.  It is contended
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
441
that the appellant has not challenged the order passed by the learned
Single Bench in an appeal in respect of non-grant of relief (B) in I.A.
No. 5860 of 2017.  Therefore, the restoration of the order of learned
Single Bench by this Court will not mean that the appellant has right to
operate bank accounts exclusively.  The additional direction in para 59
was to safeguard the interest of both the groups so that one group is not
excluded in the affairs of Hamdard.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that
there is an inadvertent mistake in the judgment dated April 3, 2019 when
the Court said that the parties will additionally continue with the
arrangements arrived at in respect of the management of the Hamdard
in terms of resolution dated April 28, 2015.  The resolution was in
respect of two bank accounts of Hamdard in the Corporation Bank only.
The resolution is in no way in respect of management of Hamdard and
even remotely has no connection with the management of the Hamdard.
Therefore, the word ‘management’ is inadvertent mistake of this Court
which is required to be substituted by the word ‘banking operations’.
10. The learned Single Bench has not granted relief to the
appellant to operate bank accounts as claimed by him.  This Court, vide
judgment dated April 3, 2019, has not granted the relief which was not
granted by the learned Single Bench but it was ordered additionally to
continue with the arrangements voluntarily
arrived at in respect of two
bank accounts of Hamdard on April 28, 2015.
11. The apprehension of the appellant that respondent Nos. 1 and
2 may not cooperate in approving the payment may not be unfounded
but we hope that the good sense will prevail on the two groups to
maintain the reputation and monumental work done by Hakim Hafiz
Abdul Majeed who started the business of Hamdard in the year 1906.  It
is not in the interest of either of the two groups to damage the goodwill
of Hamdard only because the two groups are not on the same page.  We
do hope that the two groups will rise above their egos and resolve their
disputes amicably so that the establishment of Hamdard by Hakim Hafiz
Abdul Majid continues to prosper and to charity as resolved by the Late
Hakim Abdul Majid for the benefit of the people of India.  With this
hope, we dispose of Miscellaneous Application Nos. 883-884 of 2019 by
substituting the word ‘management’ in para 59 of the judgment dated
April 3, 2019 with the word ‘banking operations’.
HAMMAD AHMED  v.  ABDUL MAJEED AND ORS.
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
442
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 589-590 OF 2019
IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3382-3383 OF 2019
12. In view of the order passed in Miscellaneous Application
Nos. 883-884 of 2019, no orders are called for in the present contempt
petitions.  Hence, the contempt petitions are dismissed.
I.A. NO. 90248 OF 2019
13. The applicant has sought a direction as to who will represent
Hamdard and depose on its behalf in various criminal proceedings
pending in different Courts against the appellant Hammad Ahmed.
14. In the application, it is pointed out that S. Rajagopalan was the
authorised representative of Hamdard in case No. 525309 of 2016 and
also in Complaint Case No. 5480/1/2010, both pending before
Metropolitan Magistrate, Kamla Market, New Delhi.  It is also pointed
out that one Javed Akhter, Sr. Manager (Legal) of Hamdard was the
authorised representative of Hamdard in three cases under Section 138
of the    Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and also in FIR No. 89 of
2014.
15. The grievance of the applicant is that the appellant has
appointed his son Sajid Ahmed as authorised representative of Hamdard.
Therefore, the son of the appellant will be prosecuting his father which
will not lead to fair trial.
16. It shall be open to the applicant to seek appropriate relief in
the Civil Suit pending as the present claim is beyond the scope of the
appeals filed and decided by this Court.  The I.A. is disposed of.
Divya Pandey
MAs., Contempt.
Petitions and IA disposed of.