Certain aspects of the provision for arbitration in the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005; hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short; arises for consideration in this case.

2. The fourth respondent is the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) constituted under Section 3 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; hereinafter referred to as RBI Act, for short. The third respondent is a credit information company; for short, CIC; as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act. Respondents 1 and 2 collectively, is a credit institution as defined in Section 2(f) of the Act. The applicant, having been using a credit card issued by respondents 1 and 2 is the one, who falls within the term borrower under Section 2(b) of the Act.

3. Detailing different aspects touching transactions as between him and the credit institution, the applicant pleaded that the third respondent CIC has erroneously and without verification of any details, included false information as furnished by the credit institution, regarding the applicant. Making reference to the different transactions as between the applicant borrower and the credit institution relating to a credit card, the applicant has made allegations against the respondents 1 and 2 in their dealings as a credit institution. In paragraph 13 of the Application, it is pleaded by the applicant that there is deliberate failure on the part of the credit institution to amicably solve the issue and it is therefore that he sought for appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate the issue. He has pleaded that there were certain proceedings before the Banking Ombudsman and also that the applicant had elicited information invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act. On the aforesaid premise, the application is filed invoking Section 18 of the Act read with Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; the A&C Act, for short.

4. The fourth respondent RBI has pleaded and placed on record materials to the effect that there is no dispute that could be referred for arbitration under the Act and that it had informed the applicant that an arbitrator cannot be appointed in relation to the matters sought to be raised by the applicant, as disputes between him and the credit institution. The third respondent CIC has filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made against it by the applicant and pleading that any dispute as between the applicant as a borrower and the credit institution is not a dispute that would fall under Section 18 of the Act for settlement in terms thereof read with the provisions of the A&C Act.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant, making reference to the Judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in Sunil Agarwal vs. LIC Housing Finance Limited, [2012] 173 CompCas 476 (Cal) argued that the application is eligible to be allowed in terms of Section 18 of the Act read with Section 11(6) of the A&C Act. Per contra, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent referred to the Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in DSL Enterprises Private Limited vs. the Chief General Manager, DBOD, Reserve Bank of India (W.P. No. 6409 of 2010) and argued that a dispute between the borrower and the credit institution which does not relate to the business of CIC is not to be subjected to the procedure for settlement under Section 18 of the Act, though the provisions of the A&C Act are incorporated by reference through that provision of the Act.

6. The Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 was enacted to provide for regulation of CICs and to facilitate efficient distribution of credit and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Credit information company is defined in Section 2(e) of the Act, to mean a company formed and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and which has been granted a certificate of registration under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act. The Reserve Bank of India is the authority to grant certificate of registrati