3(4) in the instant case. There is also apparently a violation of Sec.13(3) since a break-up of the amount demanded is not given. Regarding the challenge to the order under Sec. 14 further evidence will have to be adduced because the application by the accompanying is not produced, but nevertheless, the appellants have established a prima facie case as regards the non-service of demand notice under Sec. 13(2) as also the violation of Sec. 13(3) of the SARFAESI Act. It is a settled principle that when the foundation is false, the entire structure shall fall, going by the Latin dictum sublato fundamento cadit opus . The appellants, therefore, have a very strong prima facie case. As regards their financial strain also, they have succeeded in establishing neither the firm nor the partners have sufficient income to get 50% of the debt due. The amount stated by the respondents in their reply is taken as threshold amount and the appellants are, therefore, directed to deposit a sum of ₹30 lakhs as pre-deposit for entertaining this appeal. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the demand draft of ₹10 lakhs is being submitted today. The balance of ₹20 lakhs shall be paid in two instalments of ₹10 lakhs each within a gap of two weeks each as stated hereunder.
