HAMMAD AHMEDversusABDUL MAJEED AND ORS.

                         [2019] 6 S.C.R. 437                             437


                      HAMMAD AHMED                                       A
                                v.
                 ABDUL MAJEED AND ORS.
         (Miscellaneous Application Nos.883-884 of 2019)
                               In
                                                                         B
              (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         C
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   D
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       E
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         F
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        G
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
                                                                         H
                                 437
438             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 6 S.C.R.


A     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
B           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
C     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,
D     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
E     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
F           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;
G        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



H
      HAMMAD AHMED v. ABDUL MAJEED AND ORS.                                   439
               [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

       No. 1 neglecting/refusing to counter-sign and returning the            A
       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        B
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   C
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               D
      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:                                                                      E

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


                                                                              H
440             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2019] 6 S.C.R.


A           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
B            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
C     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
D     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.
E
              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
F     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
G     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
H
      HAMMAD AHMED v. ABDUL MAJEED AND ORS.                                 441
               [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

that the appellant has not challenged the order passed by the learned       A
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
                                                                            B
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          C
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’.       D
      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     E
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             F
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     G
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’.
                                                                            H
442            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2019] 6 S.C.R.


A          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.
B           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.

C           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
D     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
E     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.

F
      Divya Pandey                      MAs., Contempt. Petitions and IA disposed of.




G




H