H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) SRI K. Gopala Hegde is present in the Court. None appears for the respondent. Name of Sri K. S. Hanumantha Rao is shown in the cause list as the counsel for respondent No. 1. The list has been reversed and as such I proceed with the case. ( 2 ) I have heard Sri. K. Gopala Hegde, the counsel for the petitioners. Sri K. Gopala Hegde has prayed for confirmation of the interim order as well as for sale of the property attached. ( 3 ) THIS petition is under S. 30 of the Industrial Financial Corporation Act, 1948 (the 'act' for short ). Under this section the Corporation has been provided remedy to move an application for the reliefs mentioned in clause (a), (b) or (c) provided these are circumstances as mentioned in sub-sec. (1 ). Under sub-section it is provided "where an industrial concern, in breach of any agreement, makes any default in repayment of any loan or advance or any instalment thereof (or in meeting its obligations in relation to the guarantee given by the Corporation) or otherwise falls to company with the terms of its agreement with the Corporation or where the Corporation requires an industrial concern to make immediate repayment of any loan or advance under S. 29 and the Industrial concern falls to make such repayment, then, without prejudice to the provisions (of S. 28 of this Act and) of S. 69 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) any officer of the Corporation generally or especially authorised by the Board in this behalf may apply to (the Court) for one or more of the following reliefs:" (A) for an order for the sale of the property pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned to the Corporation as security for the loan or advance; or (b) for transferring the management of the Industrial concern to the Corporation; or (c) for an ad interim injunction where there is apprehension of the machinery or the equipment being removed from the premises of the industrial concern without the permission of the Board. "3a. "3a. The petitioner in this case has as mentioned earlier moved an application for the following reliefs: (a) Sale of the properties of respondent No. 1 as mentioned and described in first deed of hypothecation dated the 14th November 1986, second deed of hypothecation dated the 11th February 1987, third deed of hypothecation dated 25th August 1987 and fourth deed of hypothecation dated 5th February 1988, joint equitable mortgages created on the 11th February 1987, 27th October, 1987 and 5th February 1988 respectively and more particularly described in Annexure-T hereof; (b) Appointment of receiver in respect of said properties mentioned in prayer (a) above directing him forthwith to take possession of the said properties with all necessary powers to engage officers and staff for protection and preservation of the said properties and such other staff as may be deemed necessary by the receiver; (c) Attachment of properties mentioned in prayer (a) above; (d) Injunction restraining the respondent No. 1 its Directors, Officers, servants and agents from transferring encumbing or in any way disposing of or dealing with or removing the said properties or any of them or any part thereof; (e) Experts ad interim orders in terms of the (b), (c) and (d) above; (f) Costs; (g) Such further and other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. " ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner's case, loans were taken under four separate agreements. The first loan agreement is dated 14th November 1986. As per para-5 of the application under the 1st loan agreement dated 14-11-1986, the petitioner agreed to lend foreign currency loan of DM 1,200,000 then equivalent to Rs. 66 lakhs for its project for setting up the manufacture of day light phosphors at Nanjangud Industrial Area, District Mysore and respondent No. 1 as a security executed a deed of hypothecation on 14-11-1986 in favour of petitioner No. 1 and hypothecated its entire movable assets subject to prior charges over the stocks of raw- materials, semi-finished and finished goods and consumable stores in favour of its bankers. As further security for the said loan of DM 1,200,000, respondent created by way of first charge, inter alia, in favour of the 1st petitioner mortgage of deposit of title deeds at petitioner's office on 11th February 1987 in respect of respondent No. 1 entire immovable properties situated at village Kallahalli, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore. As further security for the said loan of DM 1,200,000, respondent created by way of first charge, inter alia, in favour of the 1st petitioner mortgage of deposit of title deeds at petitioner's office on 11th February 1987 in respect of respondent No. 1 entire immovable properties situated at village Kallahalli, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore. According to the petitioners the said loan was disbursed by the petitioner in full to respondent No. 1. ( 5 ) PETITIONER's further case is that petitioner on request of respondent No. 1 further agreed to lend additional loan of Rs. 68 lakhs for the said project and in respect of that second loan agreement dated 11th February 1987 was entered into. The said sum of Rs. 68 lakhs was disbursed by the petitioner after deed of hypothecation had been executed. After the hypothecation deed dated 11th February 1987 had been executed as a security for the second loan and with respect to the second loan a joint mortgage by deposit of title deeds had also taken place and according to the petitioners a memorandum of entry evidencing deposit of title deeds for creating the said mortgage by deposit of title deeds was recorded in the books of the petitioner. The petitioners annexed the copy thereof as Annexure-J to the petition. Thereafter in August 1987 according to petitioner's case, the petitioner agreed to lend an additional loan to the tune of Rs. 23. 81lakhsfor the said project on the terms and conditions contained in the loan agreement dated 25-8-1987 described in the petition 3rd loan agreement. The copy of which the petitioner has annexed as Annexure-L and the deed of hypothecation was also executed on the said date i. e. , 25th August 1987 putting a charge by way of first charge on an entire movable assets subject to the prior charge over the stocks of raw materials, semi-finished and finished goods consumable stores and book debts in favour of respondent No. 1's bankers for securing the borrowings for working capital requirements in the ordinary course of business and further security was created with reference for the third loan on 27th October 1987 vide the memorandum of entry evidencing deposit of title deed as recorded in the books of the petitioner to create a joint mortgage by deposit of title deeds by constructive delivery in respect of its entire immovable properties. According to the petitioner out of the third loan a sum of Rs. 23. 81 lakhs a sum of Rs. 23. 29 lakhs was disbursed and the balance of amount of Rs. 0. 52 lakh was cancelled as it was not availed of. The third deed of hypothecation and the joint equitable mortgage was duly filed with the Registrar of Companies, Bangalore. Thereafter in 5th February 1988, 4th loan agreement that took place whereunder the petitioner agreed to lend additional loan of Rs. 54 lakhs and the fourth loan agreement was executed on 5th February 1988 and as a security for the 4th loan, deed of hypothecation dated 5th February 1988 was executed and thereunder respondent No. 1 hypothecated by way of charge on all his movable assets subject to the prior charge over the stocks of raw materials, semi-finished and finished goods, consumable stores and book debts in favour of respondent No. 1. The copy of the deed of hypothecation dated 5-2-1988 has been annexed as Annexure-G to this petition and further to provide security for the aforesaid 4th loan a joint mortgage by deposit of title deeds by constructive delivery in respect of entire immovable properties had been created and a memorandum of entry evidencing deposit of title deeds for creating the said mortgage was prepared. A copy of which the petitioner has annexed as Annexure-R to the petition. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner's case, the entire sum of 4th loan was disbursed to the respodent No. 1 by petitioner No. 1 in full on the dates mentioned in paragraph-23. The deeds in that concern of the loan were filed with the Registrar of Companies. The description of the properties of immovable and movable which have been mortgaged/charged by respondent No. 1 in favour of the petitioner is annexed collectively as Annexure- T to this petition. In para-26 of the petition, the petitioner has stated that all the four agreements provide that if one or more of the following events mentioned in the paragraph and in the agreement take place then petitioner No. 1 by notice in writing given to respondent No. 1 may declare the principal and all accrued interest on the loans to be due and payable forthwith and the security created in respect thereof becomes enforceable. According to the petitioner's case the respondent No. 1 committed breach of the terms of the four agreements and four deeds of hypothecation. The respondent committed defaults and breach of terms, the 1st respondent failed and neglected to pay to the petitioner the instalments of principal and interest in respect of the said loans as has been indicated in para-27:para 27 reads as follows: -"the petitioner No. 1 submits that in breach of the terms of the said First Loan Agreement dated the 14th November 1986, Second Loan Agreement dated 11th February 1987, Third Loan Agreement dated 25th August 1987 and Fourth Loan Agreement dated 5th February 1988, Deed of Hypothecation dated the 14th November 1986, Second Deed of Hypothecation dated 25th August 1987 and Fourth Deed of Hypothecation dated 5th February 1988, the respondent No. 1 committed the following defaults and breaches :a) The respondent No. 1 failed and neglected to pay to the petitioner No. 1 instalments of principal and interest payable in respect of the said loans as under :loan of DM 1,200,000 (first loan):i) Principal : @@ due date Amount (DM)Exchange Rate DM/ Rs. 100 Amount (Rs.) 31-12-90 100, 0008, 432511, 85,887. 94 30-6-91 100, 0008, 486011, 78,412. 00 31-12-91 100, 0005, 826517, 16,296. 00 due dateamount (Rs.) 30-6-906,94,360. 0031-12-908,14,524. 0030-6-919,05,052. 0031-12-9113,23,789. 00iii) (a) funded interest of Rs. 23,02,255. 00. Due dateamount (Rs.) 15-4-19912,10,00015-5-19912,10,00015-6-19912,10,00015-7-19912,10,00015-8-19912,10,00015-9-19912,10,00015-10-19912,10,00015-11-19912,10,00015-12-19912,10,00015-1-19922,10,00015-2-19922,10,000 b) interest on funded interest: due dateamount (Rs.) 30-6-19901,14,16731-12-19901,16,05930-6-19911,15,77831-12-19911,30,779b) Second Loan or Rs. 68. 00 lakhs. i) Principal:due dateamount (Rs.) 15-10-19913,75,00015-1-19923,75,00015-4-19923,75,000iii) Interest @ 13. 5% p. a. and 15. 5% p. a. exclusive of interest tax. Due dateamount (Rs.) 15-7-19902,29,35015-10-19902,40,34615-1-19912,49,73615-4-19912,53,85215-7-19912,66,48315-10-19912,79,82215-1-19923,03,06115-4-19923,12,458c) Third Loan of Rs. 23. 61 lakhs. i) Principal:due dateamount (Rs.) 15-10-19911,33,00015-1-19921,33,00015-4-19921,33,000ii) Interest @ 13. 5% per annum and 15. 5% per annum exclusive of interest tax. Due dateamount (Rs.) 15-7-199078,55215-10-199082,31915-1-199185,53515-4-199186,94415-7-199191,27015-10-199195,83915-1-19921,03,82215-4-19921,07,066d) Loan of Rs. 54 lakhs (Fourth Loan ). i) Principal :due dateamount (Rs.) 15-10-19913,00,00015-1-19923,00,00015-4-19923,00,000ii) Interest @ 13. 5% p. a. and 15. 5% p. a. exclusive of interest tax. Due dateamount (Rs.) 15-7-19901,82,13115-10-19901,90,864. 15-1-19911,98,32115-4-19912,01,58815-7-19912,11,61915-10-19912,22,21215-1-19922,40,67915-4-19922,48,153e) Funded interest of Rs. 32,46,167:i) Funded interest instalment:due dateamount (Rs.) 15-4-19912,90,00015-5-19912,90,00015-6-19912,90,00015-7-19912,90,00015-8-19912,90,00015-9-19912,90,00015-10-19912,90,00015-11-19912,90,00015-12-19912,90,00015-1-19922,90,00015-2-19922,90,00015-3-19922,90,000ii) Interest on funded interest @ 13. 5% p. a. and 15. 5% p. a. Due dateamount (Rs.) 15-7-19901,08,97815-10-19901,14, 71715-1-19911,19,19815-4-19911,21,16215-7-19911,30,08315-10-19911,40,96415-1-19921,56,22215-4-19921,64. 142 @@ ( 7 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner's case on the default having taken place or having been committed by, respondent-1 petitioner vide letter No. RFD II/ C. 294/92. 32,46,167:i) Funded interest instalment:due dateamount (Rs.) 15-4-19912,90,00015-5-19912,90,00015-6-19912,90,00015-7-19912,90,00015-8-19912,90,00015-9-19912,90,00015-10-19912,90,00015-11-19912,90,00015-12-19912,90,00015-1-19922,90,00015-2-19922,90,00015-3-19922,90,000ii) Interest on funded interest @ 13. 5% p. a. and 15. 5% p. a. Due dateamount (Rs.) 15-7-19901,08,97815-10-19901,14, 71715-1-19911,19,19815-4-19911,21,16215-7-19911,30,08315-10-19911,40,96415-1-19921,56,22215-4-19921,64. 142 @@ ( 7 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner's case on the default having taken place or having been committed by, respondent-1 petitioner vide letter No. RFD II/ C. 294/92. R 100743 dated 26th June1992 recalled the entire amount due for principal, interest and other monies in respect of said loans of DM 1,200,000, Rs. 68. 00 lakhs, Rs. 23. 81 lakhs and Rs 54. 00 lakhs and called upon respondent No. 1 to pay forthwith a sum of Rs. 4,91,62,508. 00 being the outstanding amount in respect of the said loans as calculated up to 30th May 1992 together with further interest and compound interest, liquidated damages, and other monies that may become due and payable up to the date of payment. It has been asserted by the said letter the petitioner No. 1 also gave a notice to respondent No. 1 that in case of default of payment within 15 days from the date of the said letter, the provisions of the said loan agreement and the Act would be enforced without any further reference to respondent No. 1 and that the respondent will be liable to pay all costs, charges, etc. ( 8 ) THE petitioner's case is that in spite of the notice, respondent No. 1 did not pay the said amount, failed and neglected to pay the aforesaid amount or any part thereof. As per para 29 a sum of Rs. 5,03,85,145 became due and payable by respondent No. 1 to petitioner No. 1 as per para-29 by or on March 15th 1993 i. e. , before filing of the petition, under Section 30. In para-29 two notes have been put which read as under:note:1) Intt. liability on F. C. amount has been included only up to 31-12-1992 and the same would be determined in Rupee as on the date of recovery at the exchange rate prevailing on the said date. 2) Rupee equivalent of outstanding DM amount would also be arrived at on the above basis. The petitioner entitled to further interest compound interest, liquidated damages at the agreed rates and other monies until realisation. 2) Rupee equivalent of outstanding DM amount would also be arrived at on the above basis. The petitioner entitled to further interest compound interest, liquidated damages at the agreed rates and other monies until realisation. ( 9 ) WITH these allegations, the petitioner has filed this petition under Section 30 of the Industrial Corporation Act, 1948 for the reliefs as mentioned in Para 37 of the claim petition as well indicated in the body of this judgment. A notice has been given prior to the filing of the claim petition under Section 30 dated 26-6-1992 which has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure- U to the petition under Section 30. Thereby the petitioner called upon the first respondent to make payment of the Amounts mentioned in the notice and comply with the requirements and in case it is mentioned that the respondent fail to make the payment and comply with the requirement then the Industrial Finance Corporation of India would be constrained to take such (sic) step as may be advised for enforcing the securities and realizing its dues according to law. Annexure-V is the acknowledgment which indicates that the notice has been served on the respondent-firm. ( 10 ) ON 8th April 1993 this Court, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. V. Vasantha Kumar, had been pleased to grant the ad interim order of attachment of the securities as well as ad interim injunction restraining the industrial concern from transferring or removing its machinery or equipment. The material portion of the order of the Hon'ble Mr. justice R. V. Vasantha Kumar is being quoted herewith from the order sheet dated 8-4-1993. "the petitioners have sought the relief as envisages in sub-clauses (a) and (c) of sub- section (1) of Section 30 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act. The reliefs sought for are the ad interim orders for attachment of the securities as well as ad interim injunction restraining the industrial concern from transferring or removing its machinery or equipment and they are allowed. The reliefs sought for are the ad interim orders for attachment of the securities as well as ad interim injunction restraining the industrial concern from transferring or removing its machinery or equipment and they are allowed. " ( 11 ) THEREAFTER, the learned Hon'ble Judge, directed that notice be issued to respondent No. 1 in respect of the interim reliefs granted and further the 1st respondent is directed to show cause within two weeks from the date of service of notice as to why the ad interim orders made by this Court should not be confirmed and directed the case to be listed on 23-4-1993. It appears on 23-4-1993 1st respondent's counsel prayed for time to file counter affidavit. But thereafter different dates as per the order sheet of the court had been fixed in the case and lastly on 25th October 1994. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gopi Chand Bharuka passed the following order. "even today there is no representation on behalf of the respondent though the case was called twice. Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. As a last measure, call it day after tomorrow. "the Order dated 26-10-1994 reads as follows:"memo filed for deleting R-2 is allowed. Even today no one appears for respondent-1. Call on 7-11-1994 to enable the petr. to file affidavit in support of the petition. "in pursuance of the said order affidavits and documents were filed on 7-11-1994. ( 12 ) TODAY the case has beep called twice. The list being revised. The case have been taken. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1. No reply of counter affidavit or objections showing the cause against the petition being allowed and against the interim order passed earlier has been (sic ). Such a situation is dealt with in Section 30 and it will be profitable to refer sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 30 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948. Sub-section (7) of Section 30 reads as under:"if no cause is shown on or before the date specified in the notice under sub-sections (4) and (6 ). The Court shall forthwith make the ad interim order absolute and direct the sale of the attached property or transfer the management of the industrial concern to the Corporation or confirm the injunction. Sub-section (7) of Section 30 reads as under:"if no cause is shown on or before the date specified in the notice under sub-sections (4) and (6 ). The Court shall forthwith make the ad interim order absolute and direct the sale of the attached property or transfer the management of the industrial concern to the Corporation or confirm the injunction. "sub-section (8) of Section 30 reads as under:"if cause is shown the Court shall proceed to investigate the claim of the Corporation and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall as far as practicable apply to such proceedings. " ( 13 ) IN the circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, the case is covered by Section 30 (7) of the Act as no cause has been shown till today and the Act mandates the Court and directs the Court that if no cause is shown on or before the date specified in the notice the Court shall make the interim order absolute and direct the sale of the attached property. The interim order dated 8th April 1993 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. V. Vasantha Kumar is hereby made absolute. It is further ordered that the main claim in the petition relating to sale of properties referred to in Annexure-T is also allowed. Let the property attached be put to sale in accordance with law i. e. , sub-section (10) of Section 30 of the Act read with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code relating to attachment and sale of properties, movable and immovable. As the opposite party have not contested the claim it shall be proper that cost may be made. Thus his petition is finally disposed of as allowed. No order as to cost. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .