Inherent powers allow expungement of adverse remarks where CIRP irregularities stem from a statutory misunderstanding, not mala fides.

The Tribunal considered whether personal observations and consequential directions in an earlier judgment should be expunged in exercise of its inherent powers. It held that the earlier findings on the legality of the CIRP, the composition of the CoC, and the approval process had already attained finality and could not be reopened. The only surviving issue was the adverse remarks against the erstwhile resolution professional. Because the case arose in an unusual statutory setting, with no financial creditors and a CoC consisting only of an operational creditor who later became the resolution applicant, the omission was treated as a misunderstanding of the CIRP Regulations rather than misconduct. The strictures and related directions were therefore expunged.

---

---

Issues: Whether the personal observations and consequential directions contained in paragraph 99 of the earlier judgment deserved expungement in the exercise of the Tribunal's inherent powers.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the earlier findings on the legality of the CIRP, the composition of the Committee of Creditors, and the approval process had attained finality and were not open to review in the present proceedings. The only question was whether the adverse remarks against the erstwhile resolution professional should stand. It noted that the process arose in an unusual statutory setting where there were no financial creditors, the CoC consisted only of an operational creditor, and the same stakeholder later became a resolution applicant. The Tribunal accepted that the omission flowed from an incorrect understanding of the interplay between the operational-creditor CoC mechanism under the CIRP Regulations and the bar against voting on one's own resolution plan, rather than from any dishonest or mala fide intent.

Conclusion: The personal strictures and consequential directions against the erstwhile resolution professional were fit to be expunged, while the substantive findings on the CIRP issues were left undisturbed.

---