Non-updation of credit information falls outside arbitration where a specific statutory correction remedy exists.

A dispute over non-updation or correction of credit information did not fall within the arbitration mechanism under Section 18 of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005, because that provision applies only to business disputes where no specific statutory remedy exists. The Act instead provides a direct procedure under Section 21(3) read with Rule 22 of the Credit Information Companies Rules, 2006 for correction or updation within the prescribed time. The Court also held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not ordinarily available where an efficacious alternative remedy existed and the grievance had already been addressed through the Ombudsman mechanism. The appointment of an arbitrator was therefore not warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a dispute relating to non-updation of credit information falls within the arbitration mechanism under Section 18 of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005. (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy provided for correction or updation of credit information.

Issue (i): Whether a dispute relating to non-updation of credit information falls within the arbitration mechanism under Section 18 of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005.

Analysis: Section 18 applies to disputes concerning the business of credit information where no remedy is provided under the Act. The grievance in the present matter was not a general business dispute but a complaint about failure to update credit information. The Act separately provides a specific mechanism under Section 21(3), read with Rule 22 of the Credit Information Companies Rules, 2006, for requesting correction or updation of information within the prescribed time.

Conclusion: The dispute did not fall within Section 18, and appointment of an arbitrator under that provision was not warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy provided for correction or updation of credit information.

Analysis: The statutory scheme provided an efficacious remedy for updation of credit information, and the grievance had already been taken up before the Ombudsman mechanism and resolved. In such circumstances, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226, applying the settled principle that availability of an effective alternative remedy ordinarily militates against writ intervention.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to a direction for appointment of an arbitrator, and the writ petition failed for want of maintainability and merit.

Ratio Decidendi: A dispute concerning non-updation or correction of credit information, where the statute provides a specific corrective remedy, does not attract the arbitration mechanism under Section 18, and writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised when an efficacious statutory remedy exists.

---