https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97028 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. en-us Tue, 08 Mar 1949 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:05:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97028 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 08 Mar 1949 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97028