Requirement of obtaining IEPF transfer orders waived to facilitate rectification of the Register of Members.

The Appellant filed a Contempt Petition alleging non-compliance with an NCLAT New Delhi judgment dated 25.01.2018

The original judgment directed the Respondent to rectify its Register of Members to reflect the Appellant as the sole shareholder, subject to the Appellant obtaining a transfer order from the Investor Education and Protection Fund (IEPF) Authority

The Respondents contended that this requirement acted as an impediment to compliance

In their response, the Respondents expressed a willingness to rectify the register provided the condition regarding the IEPF Authority was clarified or removed, arguing that rectifying the register without the IEPF order would technically constitute a violation of the original 2018 directions

The Court exercised its inherent power to modify previous directions to ensure the effective enforcement and administration of justice. It primarily addressed the execution of directions under the Companies Act regarding the rectification of the Register of Members

The Tribunal applied the principle that where a condition precedent in a judicial order creates an unforeseen impediment to the primary relief granted, the Tribunal may relax or waive such a requirement to facilitate compliance and resolve contempt proceedings

The Tribunal observed that Para 14 of the 2018 judgment created a procedural "impediment" because it made the rectification of the register contingent upon an order from the IEPF Authority

The Respondents argued in Para 9 of their reply that they were "ready and willing" to comply but were legally constrained by the specific wording of the 2018 order

The Tribunal reasoned that for the "effective enforcement" of the original judgment, it was necessary to modify the terms of the order by waiving the requirement for the Appellant to move the IEPF Authority

By removing this condition, the Tribunal enabled the Respondents to fulfill their undertaking to rectify the Register of Members without fear of being in technical contempt of the original order’s specific procedural roadmap

The requirement for the Appellant to obtain transfer orders from the IEPF Authority, as stipulated in Para 14 of the original judgment, was waived

The Tribunal held that the Respondents must now ensure compliance with the rectification of the Register of Members based on their undertaking

The Contempt Petition was stood closed subject to these directions