REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NOS. 883-884 OF 2019 IN

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3382-3383 OF 2019           

HAMMAD AHMED                ......APPELLANT

          Versus

ABDUL MAJEED AND ORS.                            …...RESPONDENTS

W I T H

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 589-590 OF 2019 IN

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3382-3383 OF 2019

O R D E R  

HEMANT GUPTA, J  .

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NOS. 883-884 OF 2019

The  present  applications  are  filed  by  the  appellant-plaintif

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;

1

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  No.  1  neglecting/refusing  to  counter-sign  and returning the payment 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 plaintif to operate accounts maintained by Hamdard as sole signatory in his capacity as Chief Mutawalli.

2

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 plaintif.

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

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 plaintif.   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 plaintif

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

3

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 plaintif 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

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

4

safeguard  the  interest  of  both  the  groups  so  that  one  group  is  not

excluded in the afairs 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

5

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’.  

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 diferent 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

6

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.

………...…………..........................J.       (Uday Umesh Lalit)

………….….................................J.       (Hemant Gupta)

New Delhi, JULY  09, 2019.

7