Inherent powers under Rule 11 cannot be used to modify a clear direction; substantive change must be sought in appeal.

Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 confers inherent power only to make orders necessary to meet the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process; it does not permit the Tribunal to reopen concluded factual findings or recast a deliberately framed direction where no ambiguity exists. An application styled as clarification cannot be used to shift an additional financial burden arising from an admitted claim to another party, because that would amount to substantive modification of the earlier decision rather than clarification. Any such alleged error must be pursued through appellate review, not by invoking Rule 11. The requested modification was therefore held not maintainable and was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 could be used to modify or clarify the earlier directions so as to shift the additional financial burden arising from the admitted claim to the resolution applicant or the CoC.

Analysis: Rule 11 confers inherent powers to make orders necessary to meet the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, but it does not authorise the Tribunal to revisit concluded findings on facts or to rework a consciously framed direction where no ambiguity exists. The requested relief would have altered the substance of the earlier direction that the additional amount was to be borne by the resolution applicant and would therefore amount to modification of the judgment rather than clarification. Such relief was beyond the scope of Rule 11, since the proper remedy for any substantive error lies in appellate review and not in an application styled as clarification.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable under Rule 11 and the requested modification was declined.

---