automatically render all other facilities as NPA. The defect regarding the demand notice u/s 13(2) also appears to be very pedantic because the demand notice cannot be expected to give a detail of the change in the interest rate when it is a floating rate of interest. What is intended by Section 13(3) is a bifurcation of the principal interest and other charges and therefore, not mentioning the further classification of the interest and the other charges or the penal interest will not in any way affect the validity of the interest. Moreover, the appellants have not sent any objections to the demand notice u/s 13(2) which they could very well have done had they required further clarification regarding the demanded amount. Regarding the challenge to the validity of the mortgage too, I don’t find much force in the argument, although, I leave it to the DRT to enter a finding about the validity of the mortgage at the stage of trial. Prima facie, I find that there is sufficient compliance with all the rules and also evidence regarding the creation of the mortgage. Hence, the appellants are not entitled to a waiver of 25% of the debt due. Nevertheless, the appellants have to a great extent succeeded in establishing that they are impecunious going by their Income Tax Returns. Even if the total income of all the appellants is taken, it is not a big amount and therefore, the appellants are entitled to some concessions.
