P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

These three appeals arise from a common cause of action in relation to the order dated 11.03.2008' passed by the court below (lower Appellate court), whereby the appeals preferred against the verdict of the Trial court-Insolvency Court [declaring the concerned respondents/counter petitioners 1 to 26 as insolvents, causing recovery of the due amount by selling the assets] which were dismissed on 07.03.2008, [referring to the 'settlement' arrived at as per the approved scheme and based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appeals were not pressed] strangely came to be allowed on 11.03.2008, in turn setting aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court, without any application for review or without hearing the affected parties/the present appellants. The effect of the subsequent order dated 11.03.2008is that, the verdict dated 07.03.2008 has been 'suo motu' reviewed by the lower Appellate court, taking a diametrically opposite view/course allowing the appeals and annulling the verdict passed by the Insolvency court referring to the 'settlement' under the scheme to be made in conformity with the provisions of the Insolvency Act ('Act' in short), that too, without issuing notice to anybody and hearing the aggrieved parties.

2. M.F.A.No.99 of 2009 is treated as the lead case and reference is made to the parties and proceedings accordingly, except where it is separately adverted to. Heard both the sides in detail.

3. The appeal was preferred with a petition to condone the delay in filing the same, which was condoned as per the order dated 07.04.2010. The appeals were not formally admitted, presumably based on the submissions made from both the sides to have the issue finally heard and decided. There is a challenge with regard to maintainability of the appeals as well. It is also seen that various interim orders have been passed on different dates and the matters were finally heard by another Bench and taken up for judgment on 04.08.2015. But subsequently, it was re-opened as per the order dated 14.01.2016 for further hearing by appropriate Bench as per the roster and were listed accordingly. After hearing, it was found that substantial questions of law were involved and hence the appeals were formally admitted on 14.03.2016. Following are the substantial questions of law raised by this Court on that day.

1. Whether the order dated 11.03.2008 passed by the lower appellate court is an order passed by the District Court in appeal arising from an order under Section 4 of the Insolvency Act passed by the Subordinate court.

2. Whether appeal is maintainable by virtue of second proviso to Section 79 (1) of the Insolvency Act.

3. Whether the order dated 11.03.2008 passed by the lower appellate court comes within the purview of Sections 151,152 or 153 of the CPC, so as to be accepted as an incidental slip/omission/mistake to be corrected under the said provision.

4. Could such an order have been passed by the lower appellate court on 11.03.2008 allowing the appeals, when, as per the earlier order dated 7.03.2008, all the appeals were dismissed as not pressed based on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants before the court below; thus arriving at a diametrically opposite finding.

5. Whether such an exercise could have been done by the lower appellate court without affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties.

4. The 4th and the 14th respondents filed I.A.No.1182 of 2016 seeking to consider some additional points projected as substantial questions of law, along with those already framed by the Court. They are the following:

i). Whether an insolvency petition can be filed in a representative capacity?

ii) Whether the Sub Court/trial court was justified in declaring respondents 11,15 and 16 who were minors as insolvents?

iii) Whether the Sub Court/trial court was justified in declaring respondent No.10 who is a mentally retarded person as insolvent?