9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies i.e. where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. 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 - Though Debt Recovery Tribunal granted interim order on condition to pay 25% of the demand amount, the said interim order was not complied with and auction was concluded in respect of four properties and realised a sum of Rs. 216.50 lakhs - the petitioner was declared as wilful defaulter. The direction sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted and the writ petition itself is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed - Petition dismissed. - Honourable Mr. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan For the Petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record the closure of the previous loans availed by the petitioner and update the credit score of the 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 request for an arbitrator to be appointed by the first respondent in terms of Section 18(2) of the Act. However, there is no reply. Hence the writ petition. 3. On perusal of the counter filed by the first respondent and also the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent revealed that on receipt of the complaint from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o remedy is provided under the Act and that the dispute between the borrower including any dispute arising out of correctness or otherwise. The credit information given by the credit institution to the credit information companies is not a dispute relating to the business of credit information. Therefore, the writ petition itself is not maintainable seeking direction to appoint an arbitrator under Section 18(2)(a) of the Act. Further Section 18 of the Act provides that for any dispute arising amongst credit information companies, credit institutions, borrowers and clients on matters relating to the business of credit information and for which no remedy has been provided under this Act. Therefore, only on matters pertaining to the business of credit information and for which no remedy is available under the Act shall be referred for appointment of an arbitrator. 4. In the case on hand, the allegation alleged by the petitioner is with regards to non updation of credit information 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 N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount 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 information company at the earliest in this behalf. 4.1 Thus it is clear that the dispute between the borrower and the credit institution are not covered under Section 18 of the Act. Such grievance is specifically covered under Section 21 (3) of the Act which mandates credit institutions / credit information company, as the case may be, to take appropriate steps to update the credit information within 30 days after being requested to do so. 5. However, if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies i.e. where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or where there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
