HAMMAD AHMED versus ABDUL MAJEED AND ORS. on 9 July 2019

[2019] 6 S.C.R. 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 – Disputebetween the parties in C.A. No.3382 & 3383 of 2019 was as to whoshould discharge the duties of Chief Mutawalli of HamdardLaboratories (India) – Present applications filed by the appellant-plaintiff inter alia claiming that Supreme Court in its judgment datedApril 3, 2019 while deciding C.A. No. 3382 & 3383 of 2019 ([2019]6 SCR 402), upheld the appointment of the appellant as ChiefMutawalli but still respondent no.1 illegally continues to assert thatboth the respondent nos.1 and 2 are in joint management alongwith the appellant – Held: There is an inadvertent mistake in thejudgment dated April 3, 2019 ([2019] 6 SCR 402) when the Courtsaid that the parties will additionally continue with the arrangementsarrived at in respect of the management of the Hamdard in terms ofresolution dated April 28, 2015 – Resolution was in respect of twobank accounts of Hamdard in the Corporation Bank only and wasnot 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 ‘bankingoperations’– Further, Single Bench has not granted relief to theappellant to operate bank accounts, as claimed – Supreme Courtvide judgment dated April 3, 2019 ([2019] 6 SCR 402), has notgranted the relief which was not granted by the Single Bench but itwas ordered additionally to continue with the arrangementsvoluntarily arrived at in respect of two bank accounts of Hamdardon 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 of2019, as to who will represent Hamdard and depose on its behalf invarious criminal proceedings pending in different Courts against

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe appellant, it is open to the applicant to seek appropriate reliefin the Civil Suit pending as the present claim is beyond the scope ofthe appeals filed and decided by Supreme Court.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous ApplicationNos. 883-884 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3382-3383 of 2019

B

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.2018 of the High Courtof Delhi at New Delhi in FAO (OS) Nos. 278 and 280 of 2017

With

Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 589-590 of 2019 in Civil AppealNos. 3382-3383 of 2019.C

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,DMs. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Sudarsh Menon, Ms. Nimisha S. Menon, DevangParmar, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Order of the Court was passed by

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NOS. 883-884 OFE2019

The present applications are filed by the appellant-plaintiff claimingthe following reliefs:

A) An order restraining the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from interferingFwith 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-signall payment advices prepared by the Finance Department ofHamdard Laboratories India; GC) An order permitting to applicant/appellant to release all paymentsunder the payment advices prepared by the Finance Departmentof Hamdard Laboratories India in the event of the respondent No. 1 neglecting/refusing to counter-sign and returning theadvices within a day from the date of receipt of the paymentadvices from the Finance Department of Hamdard LaboratoriesIndia.

2. The appellant has sought the above directions, inter alia, onthe ground that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are creating impediment in theworking 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 stillrespondent No. 1 wrongfully and illegally continues to assert that boththe respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are in joint management along with theappellant. The genesis of such claim is the direction of this Court in para59 of the judgment dated April 3, 2019, which reads as under:

“59. Thus, in view of above the appeals are allowed. The orderpassed by learned Division Bench on 27.11.2018 is set aside andthat of the order of learned Single Bench on 25.10.2017 isrestored. The parties will additionally continue with thearrangements arrived at in respect of the management of theHamdard in terms of the resolution dated 28.04.2015.”

3. The appellant filed I.A. No. 5860 of 2017 before the DelhiHigh Court in Civil Suit (OS) No. 211 of 2017 claiming the followingreliefs:

A) To release the salaries and other dues of all the Mutawallis ofHamdard (including Defendant No. 4) from September, 2016 tilldate.

B) Direct all the banks as stated in para no. 2 of the application, toallow the plaintiff to operate accounts maintained by Hamdardas sole signatory in his capacity as Chief Mutawalli.

D) An order directing the defendants No. 1 and 2 to handover thepassword of the domain name www.hamdard.com,www.hamdard.in and www.hamdardindia.com and its e-mailserver password to the plaintiff.

D) Direct defendants No. 1 and 2 to disclose and handover the ERP(Enterprise Resource Planning) Admin Control Password.

A

BC

D

E

F

G

A

4. However, the learned Single Bench in its order dated October25, 2017 passed the following order in the said I.A.:

“47. In view of observations above, the defendants No. 1and 2 are directed to handover the passwordof the domain name www.hamdard.com, www.hamdard.in andBwww.hamdardindia.com and its e-mail server password to theplaintiff. 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 plaintiffto operate bank accounts maintained by Hamdard as sole signatory in itsCcapacity as Chief Mutawalli was not granted.

6. The resolution dated April 28, 2015, as mentioned in the finalorder of this Court, was passed soon after Wakif Mutawalli died onMarch 19, 2015. The resolution dated April 28, 2015 was passed in themeeting of Board of Trustees while considering a proposal to operateDtwo bank accounts of Hamdard in the Corporation Bank, Asaf Ali RoadBranch, Delhi. By such resolution, one member of each of the twogroups could sign in combination for operation of the bank accounts inthe Corporation Bank. One of the conditions in the resolution is that theresolution can be rescinded if a notice in writing is given to the Bank byany of the trustees of the Trust.

E

7. The argument of the appellant is that Abdul Majeed hasrevoked the resolution which is made out from the electronic mail senton December 12, 2018. Therefore, the arrangement in respect ofbanking operations arrived at between the two groups is no longeravailable. It is contended that Chief Mutawalli-the appellant has theFright to operate bank accounts in terms of Wakf Deed of 1948 as amendedby 1973 Deed. Therefore, the respondents be restrained frominterfering in the working of Hamdard.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for therespondents, submitted that revocation of the resolution was in theGcontext of payment of Rs. 40 crores made in four days after thejudgment of Division Bench of the High Court on November 27, 2018.It is contended that exclusive right to operate bank accounts was claimedby the plaintiff but not granted by the learned Single Bench and that thisCourt has restored the order of the learned Single Bench of the HighCourt while allowing the appeals filed by the appellant. It is contended H

that the appellant has not challenged the order passed by the learnedSingle 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 learnedSingle Bench by this Court will not mean that the appellant has right tooperate bank accounts exclusively. The additional direction in para 59was to safeguard the interest of both the groups so that one group is notexcluded in the affairs of Hamdard.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find thatthere is an inadvertent mistake in the judgment dated April 3, 2019 whenthe Court said that the parties will additionally continue with thearrangements arrived at in respect of the management of the Hamdardin terms of resolution dated April 28, 2015. The resolution was inrespect of two bank accounts of Hamdard in the Corporation Bank only.The resolution is in no way in respect of management of Hamdard andeven remotely has no connection with the management of the Hamdard.Therefore, the word ‘management’ is inadvertent mistake of this Courtwhich is required to be substituted by the word ‘banking operations’.

10. The learned Single Bench has not granted relief to theappellant to operate bank accounts as claimed by him. This Court, videjudgment dated April 3, 2019, has not granted the relief which was notgranted by the learned Single Bench but it was ordered additionally tocontinue with the arrangements voluntarily arrived at in respect of twobank accounts of Hamdard on April 28, 2015.

11. The apprehension of the appellant that respondent Nos. 1 and2 may not cooperate in approving the payment may not be unfoundedbut we hope that the good sense will prevail on the two groups tomaintain the reputation and monumental work done by Hakim HafizAbdul Majeed who started the business of Hamdard in the year 1906. Itis not in the interest of either of the two groups to damage the goodwillof Hamdard only because the two groups are not on the same page. Wedo hope that the two groups will rise above their egos and resolve theirdisputes amicably so that the establishment of Hamdard by Hakim HafizAbdul Majid continues to prosper and to charity as resolved by the LateHakim Abdul Majid for the benefit of the people of India. With thishope, we dispose of Miscellaneous Application Nos. 883-884 of 2019 bysubstituting the word ‘management’ in para 59 of the judgment datedApril 3, 2019 with the word ‘banking operations’.

AB

C

D

E

FG

H

ACONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 589-590 OF 2019IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3382-3383 OF 2019

12. In view of the order passed in Miscellaneous ApplicationNos. 883-884 of 2019, no orders are called for in the present contemptpetitions. Hence, the contempt petitions are dismissed.

BI.A. NO. 90248 OF 2019

13. The applicant has sought a direction as to who will representHamdard and depose on its behalf in various criminal proceedingspending in different Courts against the appellant Hammad Ahmed.

C14. In the application, it is pointed out that S. Rajagopalan was theauthorised representative of Hamdard in case No. 525309 of 2016 andalso in Complaint Case No. 5480/1/2010, both pending beforeMetropolitan Magistrate, Kamla Market, New Delhi. It is also pointedout that one Javed Akhter, Sr. Manager (Legal) of Hamdard was theauthorised representative of Hamdard in three cases under Section 138Dof the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and also in FIR No. 89 of2014.

15. The grievance of the applicant is that the appellant hasappointed his son Sajid Ahmed as authorised representative of Hamdard.Therefore, the son of the appellant will be prosecuting his father whichEwill not lead to fair trial.

16. It shall be open to the applicant to seek appropriate relief inthe Civil Suit pending as the present claim is beyond the scope of theappeals filed and decided by this Court. The I.A. is disposed of.

F

Divya Pandey

MAs., Contempt. Petitions and IA disposed of.

G

H