Credit information disputes may be arbitrable, but insolvency moratorium can make tribunal appointment premature.

A dispute over the accuracy or completeness of credit information may fall within Section 18 of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005, where no other remedy is provided. But if resolving that dispute would require examination of a borrower's default, a guarantor's liability, and the underlying debt while insolvency proceedings are pending, the interim moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code bars fresh action and continuing proceedings in relation to that debt. On that basis, appointment of an arbitral tribunal was premature until the moratorium ceased.

---

---

Issues: Whether a dispute concerning the accuracy of credit information supplied in relation to a borrower's default and a guarantor's liability was arbitrable under Section 18 of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005, and whether appointment of an arbitral tribunal was premature in view of proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal and the interim moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: Section 18 of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 contemplates conciliation or arbitration where a dispute arises between a credit information company, a credit institution, borrowers or clients on matters relating to the business of credit information and no other remedy is provided. Reading Sections 14 and 19 together, a dispute over the accuracy or completeness of credit information may fall within that framework. However, Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 brings into operation an interim moratorium once an application under Section 95 is filed, staying pending proceedings in respect of any debt and barring fresh legal action in relation to that debt. Since the requested adjudication of credit information accuracy would necessarily require examination of the scope of the personal guarantee and the underlying liability, and the NCLT was already seized of that dispute, constitution of an arbitral tribunal at that stage would be premature.

Conclusion: The dispute was capable of falling within Section 18 of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005, but the request for constitution of an arbitral tribunal was premature because of the pending insolvency proceedings and interim moratorium.

Ratio Decidendi: Where determination of a credit-information dispute would require prior adjudication of a guarantor's liability in pending insolvency proceedings, the court will not appoint an arbitral tribunal until the moratorium ceases.

---