- (1.) The petitioner in this art. 226 petition dated December 10, 2010 is questioning a possession notice (at p.29) dated November 2, 2010 issued by the authorised officer of Canara Bank under s.13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
(2.) Mr. Samanta, counsel for the petitioner, has argued the following two points: (i) since copy of the loan agreement was never supplied to the petitioner, the bank and its authorised officer could not take any step under the Act; and (ii) since the petitioner has responded to the possession notice offering one-time settlement, measure taken under s.13(4) ignoring the offer is vitiated by arbitrariness and unreasonableness.
(3.) It is not the case that no notice under s.13(2) was served by the authorised officer of the bank. The notice was issued on October 19, 2009 (as will appear from the possession notice), and the admitted position is that within the period mentioned in the notice the petitioner did not pay the outstanding debt. The petitioner s failure created the bank s right to exercise the rights available under s.13(4) of the Act.;