which it is explicit that the interest and the principal can be deciphered. It is further stated that there is no evidence regarding the noncompliance of the 9-pointer affidavit filed before CJM seeking an order under Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act. In the reply which has been sent by the Applicant to the demand notice under Sec.13 (2), nothing has been stated regarding the deficiency in the notice with regard to the bifurcation of the amount demanded. Hence, it has to be believed that the Appellant has waived that contention in the reply. The bank has sent a reply under Sec. 13(3A) and therefore, it is submitted that there is no defect whatsoever with the demand notice. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent also relies upon a complaint which has been filed by the Appellant before the Superintendent of Police, Surat wherein the debt is admitted. It is also stated that a sum of ₹2.50 crores was paid in cash to the principal borrower and therefore, it cannot be assumed that the Appellant is a man without means or is under any financial strain.
