- (1.) The Court : The petitioners in this art. 226 petition dated October 24, 2011 are questioning a decision dated July 14, 2011 (at p.58) of the authorised officer of Union Bank of India disposing of their objection dated July 8, 2011 to the authorised officer's notice dated February 3, 2010 (at p.46) issued under Sec. 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
(2.) Case of the petitioners, as argued by their counsel, is this. In response to the Sec. 13(2) notice the petitioners submitted an exhaustive objection dated March 29, 2010 (at p.51). Keeping the objection pending the bank negotiated with the petitioners for an amicable settlement. After the settlement failed, the petitioners made a fresh representation dated July 8, 2011. Without disposing of their objection dated March 29, 2010 the authorised officer of the bank decided to take measures under Sec. 13(4) of the Act.
(3.) Case of the bank, as argued by its counsel, is as follows. After submitting the objection dated March 29, 2010 the petitioners entered into a settlement with the bank that if they failed to fulfil their commitment within the time mentioned in the settlement, then the bank would be free to proceed under the Act. By a letter dated June 29, 2011 the bank informed the petitioners that the one -time settlement proposal made by the petitioners was not acceptable. Then the petitioners submitted fresh representations and objections to the Sec. 13(2) notice, and by the decision dated July 14, 2011 such representations and objections were disposed of.;