https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754231 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. 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 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754231