# In the matter of Kirankumar Moolchand Jain Vs. TransUnion CIBIL Ltd. & Ors., Arb.OP (Com.Div)-86/2022

> HC judgment dated 2022-10-18. Citation: TCN-2022-HC-00018. The case involves a petition filed by Kirankumar Moolchand Jain seeking the appointment of an…

- **Court:** HC
- **Order date:** 18 Oct 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-HC-00018
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/kirankumar-moolchand-jain-vs-transunion-cibil-ltd-ors-arbop-50c94fae

## Summary

### Background

The case involves a petition filed by Kirankumar Moolchand Jain seeking the appointment of an independent arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner alleges that TransUnion CIBIL Ltd. (first respondent) placed incorrect information on its website regarding the petitioner's alleged default, based on information provided by The Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd. (second respondent), which had extended credit facilities to Dilip Chhabria Design Private Limited, for which the petitioner provided a personal guarantee. The petitioner claims the additional loan was not disbursed.

## Facts

Kirankumar Moolchand Jain (the petitioner) provided a personal guarantee for a loan facility of Rs. 44 crore extended by The Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd. (second respondent) to Dilip Chhabria Design Private Limited. The petitioner alleges that this additional loan was never actually disbursed to the borrower. TransUnion CIBIL Ltd. (first respondent) allegedly placed incorrect information on its website regarding the petitioner's alleged default, based on information provided by the second respondent. The petitioner addressed all three respondents on 2021-07-19, requesting correction of the information and indicating the intention to constitute an arbitral tribunal under Section 18 of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005. Proceedings have been

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the dispute falls under Section 18 of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, …

**Ratio:** Section 18(1) of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005, provides for

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the first respondent is a credit information company, the second

…

**Interpretation:** The court interpreted Section 18(1) to mean that if a dispute arises between

…

**Application:** The court applied the ratio to the facts by determining that the dispute

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Senthilkumar…
- **Appellants:** Kirankumar…
- **Respondents:** Dilip Chhabria…; TransUnion CIBIL…
- **Advocates:** Aasim Sh…; Akhil R.Bh…; +4 more

## Timeline

- **2021-07-19 — Petitioner's Communicati…**: The petitioner addressed all three respondents, requesting correction of incorrect…
- **2021-09-01 — RBI's Re…**: The RBI did not appoint an arbitrator but directed the petitioner to approach the…

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/kirankumar-moolchand-jain-vs-transunion-cibil-ltd-ors-arbop-50c94fae