https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754231 The Madras HC dismissed a writ petition challenging non-updation of credit information by a credit institution. The court held that disputes between borrowers and credit institutions fall under Section 21(3) of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005, not Section 18(2)(a) regarding arbitrator appointment. Since an efficacious remedy exists under the Act requiring credit information updates within 30 days, and the case didn't fall under exceptions for writ jurisdiction, the petition was not maintainable. The petitioner, declared a wilful defaulter after non-compliance with DRT's interim order requiring 25% payment, had four properties auctioned realizing Rs. 216.50 lakhs. en-us Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Jun 2024 22:22:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754231 The Madras HC dismissed a writ petition challenging non-updation of credit information by a credit institution. The court held that disputes between borrowers and credit institutions fall under Section 21(3) of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005, not Section 18(2)(a) regarding arbitrator appointment. Since an efficacious remedy exists under the Act requiring credit information updates within 30 days, and the case didn't fall under exceptions for writ jurisdiction, the petition was not maintainable. The petitioner, declared a wilful defaulter after non-compliance with DRT's interim order requiring 25% payment, had four properties auctioned realizing Rs. 216.50 lakhs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754231