The claim, within the proof of Corollary 1 in Behera, Chalanga, and Bandyopadhyay (2018), that (14) implies (7), is clearly incorrect since [Formula presented], [Formula presented], [Formula presented], and [Formula presented] are all positive and [Formula presented]. (Fortunately, the main results in Behera et al. (2018) are not affected by this error.) Here, we state and prove a replacement corollary. Corollary 1 The origin of the system given by (5) and (6) of Behera et al. (2018) is finite-time stabilizable if the gains satisfy [Formula presented] Proof In view of Theorem 1 of Behera et al. (2018), it suffices to note that (7) of Behera et al. (2018), equivalently expressed as [Formula presented] is implied by (1) in the above. This is true because with [Formula presented], [Formula presented], and [Formula presented] all positive and [Formula presented], [Formula presented] holds. □ Following Corollary 1, the Remark 1 in Behera et al. (2018) may now be read as follows. Remark 1 For an unperturbed system. i.e., [Formula presented] with [Formula presented] and [Formula presented], the gain conditions are found to be [Formula presented] and [Formula presented]. Similarly, if [Formula presented] but [Formula presented] is a bounded uncertainty then the gains satisfy the relation as [Formula presented] and [Formula presented] where [Formula presented]. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd