2019 (7) TMI 451 - SC - Indian Laws

Court restrains interference in Hamdard Labs management, clarifies bank account resolution. Cooperation urged for dispute resolution.

HAMMAD AHMED Versus ABDUL MAJEED AND ORS.

The Court granted the appellant's request to restrain respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from interfering with the management of Hamdard Laboratories and directed ... Restraint on respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from interfering with the working and management of Hamdard Laboratories (India) and its allied institutions in any manner whatsoever - 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) - right to operate bank accounts in terms of Wakf Deed of 1948. HELD 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’. Issues:1. Appellant seeking reliefs related to management interference and payment advices.2. Interpretation of the judgment dated April 3, 2019 regarding the management of Hamdard.3. Dispute over operating bank accounts and related resolutions.4. Appointing authorized representatives for criminal proceedings.Issue 1:The appellant sought orders to restrain respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from interfering with the management of Hamdard Laboratories and to direct respondent No. 1 to counter-sign payment advices. The appellant alleged that despite a previous judgment upholding their appointment as Chief Mutawalli, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were wrongfully asserting joint management. The Court noted the genesis of this claim from a previous judgment and considered the appellant's plea for relief.Issue 2:The Court highlighted an inadvertent mistake in the judgment dated April 3, 2019, regarding the word 'management' in relation to the resolution dated April 28, 2015. The resolution pertained to bank accounts only, not the overall management of Hamdard. The Court clarified this error and emphasized that the resolution was specific to banking operations, not management, and directed the substitution of the term accordingly.Issue 3:A dispute arose over the operation of bank accounts and related resolutions after the death of Wakif Mutawalli. The appellant argued for the exclusive right to operate bank accounts based on the Wakf Deed of 1948. However, the respondents contended that the restoration of the Single Bench's order did not grant the appellant exclusive rights. The Court emphasized the need for both groups to cooperate and maintain the goodwill and legacy of Hamdard, urging an amicable resolution of disputes.Issue 4:Regarding the appointment of authorized representatives for criminal proceedings, the Court disposed of the application seeking direction on representation for various pending cases. The applicant raised concerns about fairness due to the appointment of the appellant's son as an authorized representative. The Court directed the applicant to seek appropriate relief in the Civil Suit, as the claim was beyond the scope of the appeals previously filed and decided.In conclusion, the Court addressed the issues raised by the appellant, clarified the interpretation of previous judgments, and emphasized the importance of cooperation and goodwill in resolving disputes related to the management and operations of Hamdard Laboratories.