HAMMAD AHMED versus ABDUL MAJEED AND ORS.

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 437 · Decided: 09-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.