Hammad Ahmed vs. Abdul Majeed, 2019

• Hakim Hafiz Abdul Majid started the business of Hamdard as a sole proprietor in the year 1906. He died on 22.06.1922 leaving behind his wife, and two sons. These three executed a deed on 28.08.1948 that in case of death of any trustees, he would be replaced by his eldest son. 
• Eventually, Haji Hakim Abdul Hamid (eldest son of the founder) became the sole surviving Wakif Mutawalli. He appointed his two sons Abdul Mueed, and Hammad Ahmed as Mutawallis in 1964. In 1955, the Wakif Mutawalli appointed his grandsons Abdul Majeed (eldest son of Abdul Mueed) and Hamed Ahmed (eldest son of Hammad Ahmed) as fourth and fifth Mutawalli. On 04.07.1995, the Wakif Mutawalli constituted the Board of Mutawallis. 
• Abdul Mueed was declared as Vice Chairman and his son Abdul Majeed as Secretary of the Board of Mutawallis and Hammad Ahmed as Senior Mutawalli. After the death of Wakif Mutawalli, Asad Mueed (the younger son of Abdul Mueed was appointed as the fifth Mutawalli by Abdul Mueed (the chief Mutawalli). The dispute started in 2015, after the death of Abdul Mueed, the first and last undisputed Chief Mutawalli, when Sajid Ahmed son of Hammad Ahmed was appointed as fifth Mutawalli and Hammad Ahmed claiming himself to be the Chief Mutawalli. 
• The appeal was then filed before a Division Bench who set aside single judge's orders. Then Hammad Ahmed approached the Supreme Court for interim relief to temporarily run the affairs of Hamdard.

Whether the plaintiff has power to given the relief of mandatory injunction and parties maintain the status quo?

• The SC, While granting mandatory injunction at interlocutory stage, held that unless clear and prima facie material justifies a finding that status quo has been altered by one of the parties, the order in mandatory injunction can be given.
• Further, it also placed reliance on the Dorab Caswaji Warden’s judgement and held that the ad-interim mandatory injunction is to be granted not at the specifically asking but based on the circumstances of each case so as to protect the rights and interest of the parties and not frustrate their rights regarding mandatory injunction. 
• Therefore, the Hon’ble court while granting the interim mandatory injunction sought for by the Plaintiff, noted the balance of convenience in favour of the Plaintiff and directed the Defendants to handover the password of the domain name for discharging the duties of Chief Mutawalli of Hamdard Laboratories (India) which was claimed by both the parties.

• The Court has the jurisdiction to maintain the status of the parties on the date of filing of the suit or on the date of passing of the order but cannot direct the parties to do something which was not in existence at the time of filing of the suit, is not a general rule of universal application. 
• The nature of the orders claimed by the Appellant are not passed ordinarily in a routine manner as the Plaintiff is required to have a case which should be of higher standard than mere prima facie case. But in view of the agreement between the parties, as recorded by the Division Bench in an earlier round of litigation the primary question was agreed to be that who is to act as Chief Mutawalli. 
• Both learned Single Judge and the Division Bench has examined such question only. Even, before this Court, the parties have argued primarily on the question as to who shall be Chief Mutawalli. Therefore, a prima-facie opinion would lead to consequential order in respect of management of the affairs of the Hamdard.

To decide in a prima facia case with a much higher standard, the consideration of the balance of convenience and irreparable injury may persuade the court to grant interim relief. Of course, such should be a rare and exceptional case.