Public examination orders may rest on a fraud allegation and prima facie material, without a prior statutory report.

Section 196 was read as not requiring a prior report under section 177B(2) before the Court could order public examination, because the statute contained no express jurisdictional and the application itself alleged fraud. The Court also found that the report and affidavits disclosed a prima facie case: the bank's affairs were said to be controlled by a small group, advances were made on worthless securities, and the appellant was linked to meetings and loan sanctions benefiting related concerns. The appellant's reply did not effectively answer those allegations, so the discretionary order for public examination was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order for public examination under section 196 could be made without a prior report under section 177B(2); (ii) whether the materials before the Court disclosed a prima facie case of fraud justifying the order for public examination.

Issue (i): Whether an order for public examination under section 196 could be made without a prior report under section 177B(2).

Analysis: Section 196 was read as not making the Court's power contingent on a report under section 177B(2). The language of section 196 contained no express requirement that the application must be preceded by a report in the form contemplated by section 177B(2). The application itself stated that fraud had been committed and sought public examination, which was treated as sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The objection to jurisdiction failed and the order was not jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the materials before the Court disclosed a prima facie case of fraud justifying the order for public examination.

Analysis: The report and supporting affidavits described the bank's affairs as controlled by a small group, detailed advances on worthless securities, and stated that the appellant had attended meetings, participated in loan sanctions, and voted for advances benefiting the related concerns. The appellant's reply did not effectively deny the material allegations or displace the liquidator's view. On those materials, the Court found sufficient basis for the discretionary order.

Conclusion: A prima facie case of fraud was made out and the order for public examination was justified.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was not shown to warrant interference with the discretionary order, and the challenge to the public examination failed in substance and on jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: An order for public examination may be sustained where the application itself alleges fraud and the materials disclose a prima facie case; a prior report in the form suggested by another provision is not a jurisdictional prerequisite unless the statute expressly so provides.

---