is not given but the demand for giving a breakup of the fluctuating rate of the interest seems to be too pedantic and not acceptable. As regards the application of the MSMED Act and concerning the question as to who has to initiate the action for referring the case to the committee, it is something that has to be considered in detail and this is not the stage where the finding on that point is called for. The appellants have however an arguable case but not a very strong prima facie case. They have to some extent also succeeded in establishing that they are under financial strain. Under the circumstances, even though the appellants are not entitled to get the 25% of the debt due towards pre-deposit waived they are entitled to some concession. The appellants are directed to deposit a sum of ₹5.25 crore as a pre-deposit for getting the appeal entertained. The possession of the secured asset is intended to be taken on the 15th instant. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the sum of ₹40 lakhs would be deposited within one week, i.e., on or before 10.01.2025. The appellants shall deposit a sum of ₹60 lakhs more on or before 15.01.2025 and in compliance with that direction, the possession intended to be taken on the 15th instant shall stand deferred till the next date of hearing. The balance amount a sum of ₹4.25 crores shall be within three instalments within the gap of two weeks each as stated hereunder.
