TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 838
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18(2)a of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005. 2. The petitioner is the proprietor of Rajalingam Group of Transports. He has been associated with several group of companies including the second respondent. In order to obtain loans, a credit score is required in terms of Section 2(g) of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). The first respondent is empowered to permit credit information companies to register under itself. Such credit information companies issued credit scores, which determines the credit worthiness of borrowers, based on which the lenders lend loans. The petitioner's lenders credit information company is Trans Union CIBIL whose credit score ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner. The failure of non updating the credit scores and the delay in updating the credit scores of the petitioner created great loss and hardship to the petitioner. The second respondent is solely liable and responsible for all loss and hardship caused to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner lodged complaint dated 26.11.2019 to the Ombudsman, Non Banking Financial Companies(hereinafter called as 'NBFC') of the second respondent. Therefore, the petitioner requested the first respondent to invoke provision under Section 18(1) of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 for the disputes and differences which arisen between the petitioner and the second respondent to refer the same to the arbitration and reques....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich no remedy has been provided under this Act, such disputes shall be settled by conciliation or arbitration as provided in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), as if the parties to the dispute have consented in writing for determination of such dispute by conciliation or arbitration and provisions of that Act shall apply accordingly (2) Where a dispute has been referred to arbitration under sub-section (1), the same shall be settled or decided,- (a) by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Reserve Bank, (b) within three months of making a reference by the parties to the dispute: Provided that the arbitrator may, after recording the reasons therefor, extend the said period up to a maximum period of six months: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....formation by the second respondent for which remedy has been provided under Section 21(3) of the Act and Rule 22 of its Rules, 2006. In fact, the grievance of the petitioner was already addressed to the Ombudsman of NBFC by way of complaint and the same was resolved on receipt of the reply from the second respondent. The said information was duly communicated to the petitioner as early as on 06.04.2020. It is relevant to extract provisions under Section 21(3) of Credit Information Companies Act and Rule 22 of Credit Information Companies Rules, 2006 hereunder: Section 21(3)-Alteration of credit information files and credit reports- (3) If a credit information company or specified user or credit institution in possession or control of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tstanding dues of the credit institution or the repayment thereof by the borrower or his guarantor, or release of the guarantor, or any scheme of arrangement entered into between the credit institution and the borrower, or the final settlement of the amount payable by the borrower pursuant to any scheme of arrangement with the credit institution, as the case may be, or on account of any such other reason, the credit Institution shall,- - (a) continue to update such data, information or credit information promptly or in any event, by the end of each reporting period not exceeding thirty days until the termination of the respective account relating to such credit information; and (b) furnish an updated credit information to the credit inf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efuse to interfere in a petition under Article 226. This proposition was considered by Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of A.V.Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs Vs. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani reported in AIR 1961 SC 1506. 5.1 The case on hand does not fall under any of the category to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. 6. It is also seen from the counter filed by the second respondent that the second respondent had lent loan around Rs. 12,00,00,000/- and present outstanding is about Rs. 7.72 crores for 45 assets. In fact, the second respondent initiated Loan Recall Notice and issued demand notice. Therefore,....