LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/hammad-ahmed-vs-abdul-majeed-and-ors-20190709/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Hammad Ahmed vs Abdul Majeed and Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
9 July 2019
Case No.
Miscellaneous Application Nos.883-884 of 2019
Result
Disposed
Bench
Uday Umesh Lalit, Hemant Gupta
Citation
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 437 : 2019 INSC 741
Supreme Court Reports [2019] 6 S.C.R. 437 : 2019 INSC 741
Headnote

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 appellantplaintiff 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 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.

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Order of the Court was passed by HEMANT GUPTA, J. MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NOS. 883-884 OF 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 pay
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →