raised by the borrowers, the creditor must give the break up at least in their reply under Sec. 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act which also is lacking in this case. As regards the selling of the property below the distress value, it is contended that the property came up for sale the third time and the first two attempts failed. Therefore, there appears to be justification for the reduction of the reserve price. I am not going to delve deep into the aspect regarding the reduction of the reserve price and also the sale of the property for exactly the reserve price because those aspects will have to be delved and determined in the S.A. which is pending consideration. The non-rejection of the OTS proposal is also very apparent and glaring, particularly given the facts that the respondent bank has admitted the receipt of the OTS proposal and even without rejecting it, they went ahead with the sale of the property which also prima facie appears to be improper. Regarding the deposit of the amount within the time frame, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants has relied upon the account statement which indicates that 75% of the amount was received beyond the period of 90 days but the Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that the amounts were received much earlier but accounted for in the account of the borrower at a later point. Those aspects will have to be examined while determining the S.A. and therefore, I am not going to discuss that in detail. The appellants have not succeeded in establishing their financial strain and therefore, they are not entitled to get the mandatory pre-deposit reduced to the minimum 25% of the debt due. However, they are entitled to certain concessions because they have succeeded in establishing a prima facie
