SUNIL AGARWAL Vs. LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this article 226 petition dated November 12, 2010, is alleging that on the basis of his application dated July 20, 2010 (at page 59) under section 18 of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005, the respondents have not taken steps for settlement of the disputes. The petitioner was a director of one Siddharta Carriers P. Ltd., of which one Sudip Sen was an employee. Showing the petitioner as a guarantor Sudip borrowed money from LIC Housing Finance Ltd., that, on Sudip's default on the loan, supplied information to one Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd., which recorded information showing the petitioner as a defaulter. Noticing the information, the petitioner submitted section 18 application.

(2.) Mr. Sengupta appearing for the petitioner has submitted that Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd., a State within the meaning of article 12, for its activities are regulated by the provisions of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005, is under a statutory obligation to record only accurate information.

(3.) His argument is that since in view of the provisions of section 18 of the Act the Reserve Bank of India was under a statutory obligation to appoint an arbitrator for deciding the dispute between the petitioner and Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd., and both this company and the Reserve Bank of India have failed to discharge their statutory duties, the petitioner is entitled to a mandamus commanding them to settle the disputes.