An order directing sale under Section 30 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948, and Section 32 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, can be made ex parte in the absence of the appellants, and an order in terms of Sub-sections (10) and (8) of Sections 30 and 32 respectively can be made at the time of making an order for sale under Sub-sections (9) and (7) of the aforesaid provisions.

N.L.Untwalia, J.

1. These two miscellaneous appeals have been placed before me for hearing and disposal under orders of Hon ble the Chief Justice passed in accordance with Rule 5 of Chapter II of Part I of the Patna High Court Rules. On a point of law there was a difference of opinion between Shambhu Prasad Singh, J., and Shiveshwar Prasad Sinha, J. It is not necessary for me to state all the facts in detail as they find mention in the judgment of his Lordship Mr. Justice Shambhu Prasad Singh. I shall mention a few of them.

2. The Industrial Finance Corporation of India, respondent No. 1 in Miscellaneous Appeal 240 of 1971, and the Bihar State Financial Corporation, respondent No. 1 in Miscellaneous Appeal 241 of 1971, advanced large sums of money to Messrs. Thakur Paper Mills Ltd. whose Managing Agents are Messrs, Ram Bahadur Thakur and Company. Both of them are appellants in the two appeals. The Industrial Finance Corporation is a body constituted under the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (Central Act 15 of 1948), and granted loan to the appellants in accordance with the provision of the said Act. The Bihar State Financial Corporation functions as a corporate body under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (Central Act 63 of 1951) and entered into transaction of advancement of loans to the appellants in accordance with the said Act. On default in repayment of the amounts of loan, both the Corporations filed their respective applications under the respective Acts, under which they are governed, before the District Judge of Darbhanga. The appellants filed show cause applications in both the cases. But at the time of hearing they were absent; their lawyer informed the learned Additional District Judge to whom the cases were transferred for disposal no instructions". The cases were taken up ex parte and orders in both the cases were made in accordance with the respective provisions of the two Acts. Miscellaneous Appeal 240 of 1971, was filed by the appellants in the case filed by the Industrial Finance Corporation of India and Miscellaneous Appeal 241 of 1971 arises out of the application filed by the Bihar State Financial Corporation. Both the appeals were heard together by a Bench of this Court consisting of Shambhu Prasad Singh and Shiveshwar Prasad Sinha, JJ. Three points were urged before their Lordships-- (i) that the cases ought not to have been heard ex parte and an opportunity should be given to the appellants to contest the cases afresh, (ii) that no order in terms of Sub-section (10) of Sec.30 of Central Act 15 of 1948 and Sub-section (8) of Sec.32 of Central Act 63 of 1951 could be made by the Court below at the time of making ex parte orders under Sub-section (9) and Sub-section (7) of the aforesaid provisions and (iii) that in any view of the matter, certain directions given by the Court below even with reference to sub-sections (10) and (8) of Sections 30 and 32 respectively are not warranted by law.

3. The first point was decided against the appellants by both the learned Judges, and no fresh argument was advanced before me--possibly it could not be--to persuade me to take a view contrary to the one taken by the Bench. After having read the Judgments of the learned Judges, I find myself in respectful agreement with then views in that regard.

4. The main difference between the learned Judges has been with reference to the interpretation of Sub-sections (10) and (8) of Sections 30 and 32 respectively. S. P. Singh, J., has taken the view that an order in terms of these sub-sections could be made at the time of making an order for sale under Sub-sections (9) and (7) while S. P. Sinha, J., has taken a contrary view. In his view, the latter part of the impugned orders could not be made at all in the proceedings as initiated; after the order directing sale was made, such orders could follow only on applications being made by the Corporations for executions of the orders of sale and not otherwise.