Summary
The earlier Hamdard order was corrected by replacing “management” with “banking operations”: the April 2015 resolution concerned only two Corporation Bank accounts and did not address management of the institution. Restoring the Single Judge’s order had not granted the Chief Mutawalli exclusive operation of bank accounts, a relief the Single Judge had not allowed. A separate dispute about representation in criminal cases was left to the pending civil suit.
Issues
- Whether the earlier reference to the 2015 resolution conferred joint management rights or concerned only banking operations.
- Whether exclusive bank-operation and criminal-case representation directions could be obtained through the disposed appeals.
Held
- The resolution concerned joint signing arrangements for two bank accounts alone. Describing it as an arrangement for management was an inadvertent mistake requiring correction. (¶¶ 6, 9–11)
- The Supreme Court’s restoration of the Single Judge’s order did not grant exclusive banking authority that the Single Judge had declined to grant; it additionally continued the voluntarily agreed arrangement for the two accounts. (¶¶ 5, 10)
- The dispute about who should represent Hamdard in criminal proceedings fell beyond the decided appeals and could be raised in the pending civil suit. (¶ 13–16)
Result
Miscellaneous applications disposed of by substituting “banking operations” for “management” in paragraph 59 of the 3 April 2019 judgment. Contempt petitions dismissed as requiring no orders. IA 90248/2019 disposed of with liberty to seek appropriate relief in the pending civil suit.