Clarification of liquidation order allowed where stakeholder-approved going-concern sale needed effect without affecting parties' rights.

Delay in filing the appeal was condoned within the insolvency appellate limitation framework. The tribunal then held that a liquidation order could be clarified or modified where the requested relief merely gave effect to a stakeholder-approved commercial decision and did not prejudice the parties' rights or liabilities. On the record, including the committee resolution and the respondents' consensus, the earlier liquidation order was treated as reflecting a sale of the corporate debtor as a going concern, and the refusal to clarify was set aside. The clarification was therefore restored without altering the substantive rights of the parties.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal was liable to be condoned; whether the request for clarification or modification of the liquidation order so as to treat the transaction as sale of the business of the corporate debtor as a going concern deserved to be allowed.

Analysis: The delay was within the permissible range and was accordingly condoned under the appellate limitation framework in the insolvency code. On the substantive controversy, the impugned order proceeded on the premise that the prior liquidation order already reflected a complete sale as a going concern and that no ambiguity remained for clarification. The appellate tribunal, however, noted the surrounding record, the stakeholder committee resolution, the absence of any adverse effect on the rights or liabilities of the parties, and the consensus of the respondents that the relief would operate only as a clarification of the earlier order. It further held that the liquidation court's inherent powers could be exercised to give proper effect to the commercial decision already taken in the liquidation process.

Conclusion: The delay stood condoned, and the appeal was allowed. The refusal to clarify the earlier liquidation order was set aside, and the earlier order was treated as modified to the extent that the corporate debtor had been sold as a going concern.

Final Conclusion: The decision gave effect to the stakeholder-approved liquidation outcome and restored the appellant's requested clarification without altering the substantive rights of the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: A liquidation order may be clarified or modified in exercise of the tribunal's powers where the requested clarification merely gives effect to an agreed stakeholder decision and does not prejudice the rights of the parties.

---