The Supreme Court of India recently passed a judgement concerning the management dispute at Hamdard Laboratories. The case involved conflicting claims by the parties regarding the operations and decision-making processes within the organization. The court’s decision aimed to bring clarity and resolution to the ongoing disputes among the stakeholders of Hamdard Laboratories.
Facts
- Appellant filed applications seeking various reliefs related to management of Hamdard Laboratories (India)
- Requested restraining order against interference in working and management of Hamdard Laboratories
- Requested order for counter-signing payment advices by Appellant
- Requested permission to release payments if counter-signing is neglected by Respondent
- Alleged impediment in management by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 despite Appellant being upheld as Chief Mutawalli
- Resolution passed on April 28, 2015 regarding operation of bank accounts in Corporation Bank
- Resolution could be rescinded with written notice to the Bank by Trustees
- Resolution allowed one member from each group to sign for bank account operation
- I.A. filed in Delhi High Court for releasing salaries, operating bank accounts as sole signatory, and obtaining passwords
- Single Bench directed handing over of domain and email server passwords to the Appellant
- Prayer to operate bank accounts as sole signatory was not granted by the Single Bench
- Resolution of April 28, 2015 was passed after Wakif Mutawalli’s death
- Parties instructed to continue arrangements as per the resolution of April 28, 2015
Also Read: Supreme Court Ruling on Dowry Harassment and Suicide Case
Arguments
- Mr. Rohatgi, counsel for the respondents, argued that the resolution was revoked following a payment of Rs. 40 crores made shortly after a High Court judgment.
- The respondents claimed that the exclusive right to operate bank accounts was not granted by the learned Single Bench, a decision which was restored by this Court.
- It is contended that the appellant did not appeal the decision of the learned Single Bench regarding the non-granting of relief in a specific application.
Also Read: Case of Technical Equipment Officer Appointment Criteria Dispute
Analysis
- In the judgment dated April 3, 2019, the Court made an inadvertent mistake when mentioning the arrangements regarding the management of Hamdard and the resolution dated April 28, 2015, which is actually related to banking operations.
- The learned Single Bench did not grant the appellant the right to operate bank accounts as claimed.
- There are concerns raised about the appointment of Sajid Ahmed, the son of the appellant, as the authorized representative of Hamdard, which may affect the fair trial process.
- The matter of appointing representatives for Hamdard in various legal proceedings is brought up, highlighting the importance of fair representation.
- Both groups involved are urged to resolve their disputes amicably for the benefit of Hamdard and its charitable endeavors.
- The precautionary directive in para 59 aimed to prevent exclusion of any group from the affairs of Hamdard, particularly concerning bank accounts held in Corporation Bank.
- The revocation of a resolution related to banking operations is mentioned, with the appellant asserting the right to operate bank accounts based on the Wakf Deed of 1948.
- The restoration of the Single Bench’s order does not automatically grant exclusive rights to the appellant to operate bank accounts.
- An application has been filed seeking clarification on representation of Hamdard in criminal proceedings against the appellant.
Also Read: Supreme Court Judgement on Transfer of Mining Environmental Clearances
Decision
- Miscellaneous Application Nos. 883-884 of 2019 order invoked.
- No orders necessary for present contempt petitions due to above order.
- Contempt petitions dismissed in light of previous order.
- Substitution made in judgment replacing ‘management’ with ‘banking operations’ in para 59.
- Miscellaneous Application Nos. 883-884 of 2019 disposed of with hope.
Case Title: HAMMAD AHMED Vs. ABDUL MAJEED
Case Number: MA-000883-000884 / 2019
