Clarification order without substantive change cannot trigger merger or revive a limitation-barred challenge to the original decision.

A clarification order that merely records prior consideration of a party's reply, without altering the original substantive decision under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, does not create a basis for merger or revival of a time-barred challenge. The record showed the appellant's reply had already been considered, and the stated omission was only clerical as to other respondents. Because the earlier challenge to the original order had already failed on limitation, the later clarification could not be used to reopen that order indirectly. The appeal against the clarification order therefore failed and the order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order dated 17.08.2023 warranted interference on the grounds that the appellant's reply was not considered in the order dated 02.05.2023 and that the appeal sought to reopen the original order notwithstanding the earlier challenge being dismissed on limitation.

Analysis: The record showed that the appellant's reply had in fact been considered while deciding the application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the omission recorded in the earlier order was only a clerical inadvertence concerning other respondents. The clarification order dated 17.08.2023 merely recorded that the reply of the appellant had already been taken into account and did not modify or replace the substantive order dated 02.05.2023. The earlier appeal against the order dated 02.05.2023 had already failed on limitation and the subsequent clarification could not be used to revive a time-barred challenge or to invoke merger in the absence of any alteration of the original decision.

Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned order failed. The appeal was not maintainable as a means to reopen the earlier substantive order, and the order dated 17.08.2023 was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A clarification order that does not modify the original substantive order does not attract merger, and a party cannot use it to indirectly reopen a challenge to an earlier order already barred by limitation.

---