TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... medy is prescribed in respect thereof by the Act of 2005. Apart from indicating that such disputes may be referred under the applicable ombudsman scheme, learned counsel for the respondents are unable to point out any other remedy that is available to a borrower or client in such circumstances - the present dispute pertains to the business of credit information and, in the absence of any other remedy, resort to arbitration is permissible under Section 18 of the Act of 2005. The first respondent raised the objection that the petitioner did not invoke the arbitration clause after the order - Under Section 18, the RBI is required to appoint the arbitrator or direct parties to constitute the arbitral tribunal as per the Arbitration Act. In this case, by reply dated 01.09.2021, the RBI did not appoint the arbitrator and instead directed the petitioner to approach the Additional Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare. Therefore, this objection is untenable. The first respondent also contended that the credit information company can correct credit information only upon certification by the credit institution. This could be raised as a defence in arbitrati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the constitution of an arbitral tribunal to adjudicate the dispute relating to the credit information provided by the first and second respondents in terms of Section 18 of the Act of 2005. Petition disposed off. - Arb.O.P.(Com. Div)No.86 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 18-10-2022 - Honourable Mr.Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy For the Petitioner : Mr.Aasim Shehzad for M/s.Akhil R.Bhansali For the Respondent : M/s.S.Parthasarathy for R1, Mr.Varun Srinivasan, Ms.Vinithra Srinivasan for M/s.NVS Associates for R2, Mr.C.Mohan for M/s.King and Partridge for R3 ORDER The second respondent herein is a lender. The said entity extended credit facilities to Dilip Chhabria Design Private Limited (the borrower). The petitioner states that he provided a personal guarantee in respect of an additional loan facility of Rs.44 crore which was offered to the above borrower. According to the petitioner, the said additional loan was not actually disbursed to the borrower. Meanwhile, the petitioner alleges that the first respondent placed on its website incorrect information provided by the second respondent in respect of the alleged default by the petitioner in respect of loan fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e it does not relate to the business of credit information. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments in Sunil Agarwal v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd, 2011 SCC OnLine Cal 5473; P.V.R.S.Mani Kumar v. Transunion of CIBIL Ltd, O.A.No.360 of 2015, order of this Court dated 27th August 2019; and Trans Union CIBIL Ltd. v. P.C.Baskar, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 18732, to contend that the matter may be referred to arbitration under Section 18. On the contrary, learned counsel for the third respondent referred to the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Srikanth Vairagare v. M/s.ICICI Bank Limited, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 274, particularly paragraphs 8 to 10 thereof; and the judgment of the Bombay High Court in DSL Enterprises Private Limited v. The Chief General Manager, DBOD, Reserve Bank of India, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 2207 to contend that the scheme of Section 18 does not extend to a dispute of this nature. He also pointed out that a review application is pending in respect of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court and an appeal is pending against the order passed in O.A.No.360 of 2008, which were relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. Both learned couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers of the credit institution which is a member of the credit information company; (b) to provide credit information to its specified users or to the specified users of any other credit information company or to other credit information company being its member; (c) to provide credit scoring to its specified users or specified users of any other credit information company or to other credit information companies being its members: (d) to undertake research project; (e) to undertake any other form of business which the Reserve Bank may, specify by regulations as a form of business in which it is lawful for a credit information company to engage. (2) No credit information company shall engage in any form of business other than those referred to in sub-section (1). 5. From the above definition, it is evident that a credit information company is entitled to engage inter alia in the business of collection, processing and collation of credit information, the provision of such information to its users and the provision of credit scores. Under Section 19 of the Act of 2005, both the credit information company and the credit institution are required to ensure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . This could be raised as a defence in arbitration but is not a valid reason to resist the Section 11 petition. 9. Another significant objection of the respondents remains to be considered. The second respondent adverted to the institution of proceedings against the petitioner as personal guarantor before the National Company Law Tribunal at Bombay (the NCLT). Upon initiation of such proceeding, he contended that an interim moratorium is triggered under Sections 95 and 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (the IBC). Such interim moratorium continues until the petition is admitted and, if admitted, a moratorium would operate thereafter. In contrast to Section 14, by relying on State Bank of India v. V.Ramakrishnan, (2019) 1 CTC 889, he contended that the interim moratorium commences on the date of lodging of the application under Section 95. According to learned counsel, such interim moratorium would apply in respect of any legal action or proceeding pending in relation to any debt or to the initiation of any legal action or proceeding in respect of any debt. By referring to a writ petition filed in the Bombay High Court by the petitioner, he contended that the NCLT pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
