ORDER : C.V. Karthikeyan, J. 1. C.S. No. 615 of 2017 has been filed by Oren Hydrocarbons Pvt. Ltd., a Private Limited Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of oil and chemicals drilling catering to multinational operations in the oil field. The defendant, India Ratings & Research Pvt. Ltd., is a credit rating agency for rating of fund based bank borrowings/non-fund based term loan facilities. It is governed by the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). 2. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement on 18.03.2013 for the purpose of bank loan rating of term loan facility and non-funded facility availed by the plaintiff. 3. The plaintiff had availed Term Loan of Rs.35.00 crores from IDBI Bank and Rs. 50 crores from State Bank of India. The plaintiff had given the details of the profit after tax earned by it for three successive financial years from 2013-2014 onwards. 4. The plaintiff had furnished the details required for rating for the year 2017. The plaintiff also furnished further details by letter dated 14.06.2017. However, on 18.07.2017, the plaintiff received a mail from the defendant attaching a Draft Rating Action Commentary downgrading the credit value of the plaintiff from 'BBB+' to 'D'. The defendant stated that review for factual accuracy and non-public information must be done by 3.00 p.m., on 20.07.2017 and that it would be published by 4.00 p.m., on the same day. 5. The plaintiff stated that the Draft Action Commentary had been prepared on 18.05.2017 itself, and requesting details on 30.05.2017 was a farce. 6. The plaintiff sent a reply on 19.07.2017 protesting downgrading. The defendant reverted back stating that the rating action is based on the management certificate and banker's confirmation that there were instances of delay in debt servicing by the plaintiff over the past six months. However documents were not referred. 7. The plaintiff again sent a mail on 20.07.2017 that they did not agree to the draft and was not granting consent to disclose the rating on the website of the defendant. The defendant replied stating that as per RBI and SEBI regulations, issuer consent was not required. 8. However documents were not referred. 7. The plaintiff again sent a mail on 20.07.2017 that they did not agree to the draft and was not granting consent to disclose the rating on the website of the defendant. The defendant replied stating that as per RBI and SEBI regulations, issuer consent was not required. 8. It had been further stated in the plaint that the local manager of the defendant informed the managing director of the plaintiff that they would send an intermediary, Nobby A Pushpakaran, vice-president of Fin Men Advisors, to discuss better rating. The said intermediary gave a letter dated 22.07.2017 assuring a minimum rating of 'BB' on payment of Rs. 15 lakhs. 9. The plaintiff termed the said demand as a bribe and refused to pay the amount. 10. The defendant downgraded the bank rating of the plaintiff from 'BBB' to 'D'. 11. The plaintiff claimed that IDBI Bank had sent a letter dated 24.07.2017 that repayment of term loan had commenced and interest/instalment had been paid up to date by the plaintiff. 12. The defendant sent a mail on 25.07.2017 stating that the Appeal Review Panel had dismissed the appeal as the information provided was found to be not material. 13. The plaintiff sent a reply dated 25.07.2017, again registering its protest. 14. The plaintiff had instituted the suit on the ground that the defendant had downgraded the rating of the plaintiff disregarding the letter of IDBI. It had been stated that the defendant suppressed the letter in gross violation of RBI and SEBI guidelines for bank loan rating and credit rating processes. The defendant had not given the details of the documents relied on for downgrading the rating of the plaintiff. It had been stated that the defendant had violated the guidelines of RBI and SEBI. 15. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking a declaration that the downgrading of the plaintiff's bank loan rating from 'BBB' to 'IND D' by the defendant was void and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from rating bank loan facilities of the plaintiff in contravention of the circulars of RBI and SEBI and for payment of costs of the suit. 16. The plaintiff filed O.A. No. 761 of 2017 seeking an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from exhibiting the bank loan rating of the plaintiff in the defendant's website as 'IND D' and also filed Appln. 16. The plaintiff filed O.A. No. 761 of 2017 seeking an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from exhibiting the bank loan rating of the plaintiff in the defendant's website as 'IND D' and also filed Appln. No. 4457 of 2017 for a direction against the defendant to remove the bank loan rating of the plaintiff from the website of the defendant, pending disposal of the suit. 17. The averments in the affidavits filed in support of the above applications were similar to the averments made in the plaint. 18. This Court had granted interim injunction on 08.08.2017 in O.A. No. 761 of 2017. 19. The defendant entered appearance and filed their counter. 20. In the counter filed by the managing director of the defendant company, it was stated that the plaintiff had not complied with the requirements under Or. 39 R. 3(a) CPC and on that one ground alone the injunction ought to be vacated. 21. It had been further stated that on 08.08.2017, the defendant had ceased exhibiting the rating of the plaintiff. 22. It had been stated that the defendant is recognized by SEBI and RBI and is regulated by SEBI. The regulations contain provisions to ensure that credit rating agencies follow a fair and independent process. A code of conduct has also been prescribed by SEBI. The credit rating agency is required to exercise due diligence and professional judgment. The rating methodology has to be disclosed to the clients, users and the public. The factors justifying favourable assessment and also constituting risk will have to be disclosed. 23. It had been stated that under Regulation 29, SEBI has the right to investigate, either by itself or through independent experts into serious complaints from investors, clients against any credit rating agency. It had been specifically stated that the plaintiff ought to take recourse to the above method, and a civil suit would not lie. 24. It had been stated that under Sec. 20 A of the SEBI Act, 1992, civil court has no jurisdiction to pass any order. 25. It had been stated that according to circular issued by SEBI, delay of 1 day of even 1 rupee, of principal or interest in repayment of loan, would be termed as default. 26. 24. It had been stated that under Sec. 20 A of the SEBI Act, 1992, civil court has no jurisdiction to pass any order. 25. It had been stated that according to circular issued by SEBI, delay of 1 day of even 1 rupee, of principal or interest in repayment of loan, would be termed as default. 26. It had been further stated that in RBI Circular, dated 26.04.2013, it had been stipulated that uniform default included delay of 'one day one rupee.' 27. It had been further stated that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an Agreement for Bank Loan Rating on 18.03.2013, and the plaintiff undertook to inform the defendant of any delay/default in meeting debt obligations. The defendant reserved the right to raise or lower the rating. The defendant must provide a reasonable opportunity to make a representation in accordance with the appeal policy. The Agreement was drawn in consonance with the terms of Regulation 14 of SEBI Regulations. 28. It had been stated that the review procedure followed by the defendant is available to the public and also on the website of the defendant. 29. With respect to the allegations in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the defendant stated that to complete the review of the plaintiff's rating for the year 2017, a mail was sent along with check list on 10.11.2016 to the plaintiff seeking information. Reminders were sent on 07.12.2016, 09.01.2017, 30.01.2017 and 07.03.2017. Personal discussions were also held seeking information. The plaintiff provided only some of the information by their mails dated 14.03.2017 and 16.03.2017. Mails seeking information were exchanged on 12.04.2017, 09.05.2017 and 13.04.2017. 30. The defendant sent a mail on 31.05.2017 seeking information by 02.06.2017, and further intimated that on failure, surveillance report shall be based on available information. Additional information were provided by the plaintiff by mails dated 31.05.2017, 02.06.2017, 05.06.2017, 05.06.2017, 09.06.2017, 12.06.2017, 14.06.2017 and 05.07.2017. There was also a personal discussion on 09.06.2017. 31. It had been stated that on 05.07.2017, the plaintiff provided a copy of its management certificate, certifying that there had been a delay of 10 days in December 2016 in repaying the term loan facility and there had been irregularity in payment in November 2016. This certificate was provided only in July 2017, 8 months after the period of delay. It had been stated that on 05.07.2017, the plaintiff provided a copy of its management certificate, certifying that there had been a delay of 10 days in December 2016 in repaying the term loan facility and there had been irregularity in payment in November 2016. This certificate was provided only in July 2017, 8 months after the period of delay. It was thus evident that the plaintiff was in default in servicing its debt obligations. 32. It had been further stated that the defendant tried to get in touch with the lending banks, but to no avail. IDBI sent a reply dated 17.07.2017 that there were occasional delays of around 10-15 days. 33. The defendant then forwarded its draft Rating Action Commentary stating that downgrading was on account of delays and disruptions in operations due to demonetization. 34. The defendant had clarified that according to guidelines, even a delay of 1 day 1 rupee from the scheduled repayment date in servicing the term loan would be considered as default. This was informed in a discussion on 20.07.2017. The plaintiff sent a mail on 21.07.2017 registering its protest and refusing consent, to which the defendant replied that consent was not required to publish the rating. 35. It had been further stated that there was another discussion on 24.07.2017, wherein the plaintiff handed over a letter from IDBI dated 24.07.2017. According to the defendant, the letter did not reflect that the installments had been paid on time. 36. It had been further stated that the letter was placed before the appeal review panel, which rejected the letter and the downgrading was not changed. 37. The defendant published the downgraded rating of 'IND D' in its press release dated 26.07.2017. 38. It had been stated that the suit had been filed suppressing the above facts. 39. It had been stated that the downgraded rating was in terms of the SEBI and RBI Circulars. 40. It had been further stated that judicial scrutiny of such downgrading at an interim stage is likely to result in undue loss, prejudice and damage to the investors at loss. It had been stated that the interim injunction should be vacated and the defendant must be permitted to publish the downgraded rating. 41. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder to the said counter. 42. It had been stated that the interim injunction should be vacated and the defendant must be permitted to publish the downgraded rating. 41. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder to the said counter. 42. In the rejoinder, it had been stated that under Clause 9(7) of the Agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, it had been provided that if disputes arise, the courts at Mumbai shall have exclusive jurisdiction. It had been therefore stated that the Civil Courts retain jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between the parties. It had been further stated that under section 21 of the SEBI Act, there is no bar or ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court. It had been stated that even under section 32, the provisions of the SEBI Act are in addition to and not in derogation to any other law in force. 43. It had been admitted that there had been no correct compliance of the requirements under Or. 39 R. 3(a) CPC. 44. It had been stated that the management certificate referred in the counter relates to loan granted by TATA Capital Finance, a non banking finance company while the agreement with the defendant was only with respect to bank term loan rating. 45. It had been stated that the defendant had not considered the letter from IDBI dated 24.07.2017, in its proper perspective. It had been stated that the plaintiff was afforded proper opportunity to explain its stand. 46. It had been further stated that the Draft Rating Action Commentary had been prepared on 18.05.2017 itself. It was devoid of basic particulars relating to issuance date and maturity date. 47. It had been stated that the plaintiff extended its co-operation and allegations to the contrary were denied. The parameters involved in downgrading the rating had not been revealed by the defendant. It had been stated that there is provision in the credit rating symbol to signify non co-operation. 48. It had been stated that the consequences of downgrading the rating from 'BBB' to 'D' are that the plaintiff would have to pay a higher rate of interest and would not be able to avail even one rupee additional finance from any bank in case of working capital shortage. The cash flow would come under strain and fate of more than 700 employees and other stake holders would be at peril. 49. The cash flow would come under strain and fate of more than 700 employees and other stake holders would be at peril. 49. It had been prayed that the interim injunction should be made absolute. 50. Heard arguments advanced by Mr. M.S. Krishnan, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff and Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned senior counsel for the defendant. Though the interlocutory application is under determination, the parties shall be referred as plaintiff and defendant. 51. The background facts are not in dispute. Interpretations thereof are. 52. But first, the issue of jurisdiction. Does this Court have jurisdiction to determine the issues, or is jurisdiction expressly and impliedly barred and ousted, is an aspect which had been elaborately dealt with by both the learned senior counsels. 53. The Agreement between the parties was called Bank Loan Rating. The word "Bank" is of much significance, since it implies that the rating is confined only with respect to repayment of interest and principal of loans availed from Banking Financial Institutions, as opposed to Non-Banking Financial Institutions. 54. It is further provided in the preamble that the plaintiff had applied to the defendant "for Rating of Fund based Bank borrowing/Non fund based/Term loan facility..." 55. The word used again is "Bank". 56. Clause 9 deals with 'General' terms and conditions. Sub-clause (1) relates to public dissemination of non-public rating without consent of the plaintiff. However, there is a proviso, namely, "provided, however, that India Ratings shall be able to publicly disseminate such ratings upon the occurrence of any of the following: (i) in response to a valid request for information in a subpoena, court order or as otherwise required by applicable law or by any judicial, legislative or regulatory authority (ii)..." 57. This clause signifies that the parties expected judicial intervention. In other words, the parties knew that under certain circumstances, a court can insist adjudication of the issues between them. 58. Sub clause (7) of Clause 9 stipulates that "This agreement shall be governed by the laws of India. India Ratings and the Applicant hereby agree that for the purpose of this agreement, if any dispute arises with respect to and/or in connection with any rating assigned, change in rating, the rationale for the rating and/or the terms or conditions and/or interpretation of the Agreement, the courts at Mumbai shall have exclusive jurisdiction in the matter." 59. India Ratings and the Applicant hereby agree that for the purpose of this agreement, if any dispute arises with respect to and/or in connection with any rating assigned, change in rating, the rationale for the rating and/or the terms or conditions and/or interpretation of the Agreement, the courts at Mumbai shall have exclusive jurisdiction in the matter." 59. Again this clause signifies that the parties expected judicial intervention as the only option to resolve disputes between them. 60. However, two aspects will have to examined. One is the stipulation that 'Courts in Mumbai' have been agreed to exercise exclusive jurisdiction, and the other is whether this clause can override express terms of the SEBI Act, 1992, which, according to the learned senior counsel for the defendant ousts the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. 61. The first aspect was clarified when the interim injunction application was moved. This Court had raised that aspect. The learned senior counsel for the plaintiff relied on 2011-4-L.W. 577 : 2011 (7) SCC 463 , Interglobe Aviation Limited v. N. Satchidanand, wherein, the Supreme Court held that "Any clause which ousts the jurisdiction and confers jurisdiction on a court not otherwise having jurisdiction, would be invalid. It is now well settled that the parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court which does not have jurisdiction;...The ouster of jurisdiction of some courts is permissible so long as the court on which exclusive jurisdiction is conferred, had jurisdiction." 62. In the instant case, the entire cause of action arose within Chennai, where both the plaintiff and the defendant are carrying on business. The agreement on behalf of the defendant was entered only by their officials at Chennai, as is evident from the seal affixed in the agreement. 63. Consequently, the clause which confers exclusive jurisdiction on Courts in Mumbai would have to be considered as invalid, since no part of cause of action arose within Mumbai. 64. However, the fact that parties agreed that "Courts" shall have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes will have to be duly considered. 65. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the defendant that such an agreement, conferring jurisdiction on "Courts" itself is invalid since it runs contrary to the provisions of the SEBI Act, 1992 and its Regulations. 66. However, the fact that parties agreed that "Courts" shall have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes will have to be duly considered. 65. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the defendant that such an agreement, conferring jurisdiction on "Courts" itself is invalid since it runs contrary to the provisions of the SEBI Act, 1992 and its Regulations. 66. The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (SEBI Act), is an Act to provide for the establishment of a Board to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate, the securities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 67. Sec. 15 Y. Civil Court not to have jurisdiction : "No civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an adjudicating officer appointed under this Act or a Securities Appellate Tribunal constituted under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act." 68. Sec. 20-A. Bar of Jurisdiction : "No order passed by the Board or the adjudicating officer under this Act shall be appealable except as provided in Section 15 T or section 20 and no civil Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Board or adjudicating officer is empowered by, or under, this Act to pass any order and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any order passed by the Board or adjudicating officer, by, or under, this Act." 69. Sec. 21. Savings : "Nothing in this Act shall exempt any person from any suit or other proceedings which might, apart from this Act, be brought against him." 70. Even before the above provisions are discussed vis-à-vis the facts of this case, a few provisions of SEBI (Credit Rating Agency) Regulations, 1999 and SEBI (Intermediaries) Regulations 2008 will have to be extracted. 71. Chapter V of the SEBI (Credit Rating Agency) Regulations, 1999, deals with "Procedure for inspection and investigation." 72. Regulation 29. Even before the above provisions are discussed vis-à-vis the facts of this case, a few provisions of SEBI (Credit Rating Agency) Regulations, 1999 and SEBI (Intermediaries) Regulations 2008 will have to be extracted. 71. Chapter V of the SEBI (Credit Rating Agency) Regulations, 1999, deals with "Procedure for inspection and investigation." 72. Regulation 29. Board's right to inspect: (1): "The Board may appoint one or more persons as inspecting officers, to undertake inspection or investigation of the books of account, records and documents of the credit rating agencies, for any purposes specified in sub-regulation (2). (2) The purposes referred to in sub-regulation (1) shall be the following, namely :- (a) ... (b) ... (c) to investigate into complaints received from investors, clients or any other person on any matter having a bearing on activities of the credit rating agency; (d) in the interest of the securities market or in the interest of investors. (3) The inspections ordered by the Board under sub-regulation (1) shall not ordinarily go into an examination of the appropriateness of the assigned ratings on merits. (4) Inspections to Judge the appropriateness of the ratings may be ordered by the Board, only in case of complaints which are serious in nature (5)...." 73. Regulation 33 : Action on inspection or investigation report: "The Board or the Chairman shall after consideration of inspection or investigation report take such action as the Board or Chairman may deem fit and appropriate including action under Chapter V of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Intermediaries) Regulations, 2008." 74. Chapter VI of the Regulations deals with "Procedure for action in case of default." 75. Regulation 34 : Liability for action in case of default: "A credit rating agency which contravenes any of the provisions of the Act, Rules or Regulations framed there under shall be liable for one or more actions specified therein including the action under Chapter V of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Intermediaries) Regulations, 2008." 76. Chapter V of the SEBI (Intermediaries) Regulations 2008 deals with "Action in case of default and manner of suspension or cancellation of certificate." 77. Chapter V of the SEBI (Intermediaries) Regulations 2008 deals with "Action in case of default and manner of suspension or cancellation of certificate." 77. Regulation 27 : Action in case of default: "After considering the representation, if any, of the notice, the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable provision of law or directions, instructions or circulars administered by the Board the designated authority shall submit a report, where the facts so warrant, recommending :- (i) suspension of certificate of registration for a specified period; (ii) cancellation of certificate of registration; (iii) prohibiting the notice to take up any new assignment or contract or launch a new scheme for the period specified in the order; (iv) debarring a principal officer of the notice from being employed or associated with any registered intermediary or other registered person for the period specified in the order; (v) debarring a branch or an office of the notice from carrying out activities for the specified period; (vi) warning of the notice." 78. A reading of the above provisions stipulate that under section 15-Y Civil Courts are ousted from exercising jurisdiction or granting injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken under the SEBI Act, 1992. 79. Under Section 20-A, Civil Courts are ousted from exercising jurisdiction or granting injunction against any order passed by the Board or adjudicating officer in respect of any action taken or to be taken under the SEBI Act, 1992. 80. Consequently, the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts are ousted in respect of both actions taken or proposed to be taken and also on orders passed on the actions taken or proposed to be taken under the SEBI Act, 1992. 81. The actions that could be taken are enumerated in SEBI (Credit Rating Agency) Regulations, 1999. 82. Under Regulation 29, the Board may appoint inspecting officers to undertake investigation of the books of accounts, records and documents of the credit rating agencies and also to investigate complaints received from clients on the activities of the credit rating agencies. 83. It has been further provided that the Board shall not ordinarily go into an examination of the appropriateness of the assigned ratings on the merits, but such inspections may be ordered only in case of complaints which are serious in nature. 84. 83. It has been further provided that the Board shall not ordinarily go into an examination of the appropriateness of the assigned ratings on the merits, but such inspections may be ordered only in case of complaints which are serious in nature. 84. The learned senior counsel for the defendant pointed out the above provisions and stated that in this case, the complaint is serious in nature. The primary complaint is that an intermediary of the defendant had approached the plaintiff and had assured a higher rating on payment of Rs. 15 lakhs. This being a complaint which is indeed serious, the learned senior counsel stated that the Board can order investigation, and such action and orders passed pursuant to such action, cannot be reappraised by a Civil Court. 85. The learned senior counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand pointed out Regulation 27 of the SEBI (Intermediaries) Regulations, 2008, wherein the actions that could be initiated in case of default was to suspend the certificate, cancel the certificate, prohibit the agency from taking up new assignment, debar a principal officer from being employed, debar a branch or office from carrying out activities or warn the agency. 86. The learned senior counsel wondered as to the relief for the plaintiff, for the loss suffered owing to degradation of the credit rating. 87. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 88. An analysis of the facts indicate that there are allegations that the plaintiff did not properly disclose information and that the defendant relied on improper information to downgrade the rating of the plaintiff. The defendant has alleged that the plaintiff did not provide necessary information in spite of several mails and personal meetings. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant had relied on a disclosure relating to a non-banking financial institution, TATA, which was not covered under the agreement and improperly rejected an explanation offered by IDBI with respect to the repayment of the loan advanced by them, while at the same time, relying on an 'unauthorised' letter issued by an official of IDBI to downgrade the credit rating of the plaintiff. 89. The above would come under the category of "appropriateness of the assigned ratings on the merits," as provided in Regulation 29 of the SEBI (Credit Rating Agency) Regulation, 1999, over which the Board shall not ordinarily order investigation. 89. The above would come under the category of "appropriateness of the assigned ratings on the merits," as provided in Regulation 29 of the SEBI (Credit Rating Agency) Regulation, 1999, over which the Board shall not ordinarily order investigation. If the Board does not ordinarily examine such issues, then, the Civil Court would have jurisdiction. 90. However, the learned senior counsel for the defendant invited attention to the next provision, which stipulated that the "appropriateness of the ratings may be ordered by the Board, only in case of complaints which are serious in nature." 91. In this case, the learned senior counsel stated that the allegation of the plaintiff of the intervention of an intermediary, Finmin, supposedly representing the defendant, and assuring the plaintiff a minimum positive rating on payment of Rs. 15 lakhs, is a serious allegation and consequently, the Board will have to necessarily order investigation, and if it does so, then the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly ousted under Sections 15-Y and 20-A of the SEBI Act, 1992. 92. I beg to differ. 93. There is no doubt that allegation of intervention of Finmin is indeed a serious allegation. But, the defendant cannot make use of such an allegation, when the allegation had raised issues requiring evidence to be adduced before any finding could be given. 94. Without expressing any further opinion, I hold that the defendant cannot take advantage of an allegation, which goes to the root of their integrity. They must be prepared to clear their reputation. The civil court provides a platform for such purpose. 95. The action taken on such allegation by the Board would be only against the defendant, but the plaintiff would have suffered loss and damage which would not be compensated by any order of SEBI. 96. In 2009 (4) SCC 299 , Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Bal Mukumd Bairawa, the Supreme Court while examining the scope of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, held that "Section 9 of the Code is in enforcement of the fundamental principles of law laid down in the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium. A litigant, thus having a grievance of a civil nature has a right to institute a civil suit in a competent civil court unless its cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred by any Statute. A litigant, thus having a grievance of a civil nature has a right to institute a civil suit in a competent civil court unless its cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred by any Statute. Ex facie, in terms of Section 9 of the Code, civil courts can try all suits, unless barred by the statute, either expressly or by necessary implication." 97. In the present case, the alleged intervention of the intermediary, Finmin has been denied as having been at their instance by the defendant. The Board may or may not undertake investigation. Even if it does, the allegation has to be examined on the touchstone of admissible and relevant evidence, which is possible only in a trial to determine the issues in a civil suit. 98. The learned senior counsel for the defendant relied on 2006 (130) Comp. Cases 227 (Bom), Kesha Appliances P. Ltd., and others v. Royal Holdings Services Ltd., and others wherein the Bombay High Court had examined the provision of Secs. 15-Y an 20-A of SEBI Act, 1992 and held that the Act is a complete code in itself and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred. In that case, which related to transfer of shares in Spice Jet company, which was challenged by the shareholders, the issue was with respect to "Take Over Regulations" which jurisdiction is exclusively conferred on SEBI authorities. It was pointed out that under Regulation 44, any order can be passed, including freezing of shares. The Court found that the SEBI authorities can provide equitable relief. 99. The facts in the present case are totally different. The plaintiff has complained that its credit rating has been unjustly downgraded. The plaintiff has complained that the draft credit rating was dated 18.05.2016, and details were sought on 30.05.2016, which itself, according to the plaintiff exposed the credibility of the defendant. The plaintiff has complained that the Draft Commentary contained blanks and columns were left unfilled. The plaintiff has complained that no opportunity was afforded to present their case before the appellate authority. The plaintiff has also complained that an intermediary, claiming to have authority to increase the credit rating had approached them with demand for payment of Rs. 15 lakhs. All these have been denied by the defendant. The plaintiff has complained that no opportunity was afforded to present their case before the appellate authority. The plaintiff has also complained that an intermediary, claiming to have authority to increase the credit rating had approached them with demand for payment of Rs. 15 lakhs. All these have been denied by the defendant. Though SEBI may order investigation, that would be only with respect to imposing punishment on the defendant, but such punishment can hardly compensate the plaintiff, since imposition of punishment would imply that its credit rating had been unjustly downgraded. 100. It is thus seen that the arguments of ouster of jurisdiction of this court in the facts of the present case cannot be accepted. 101. The plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, particularly since, it has claimed that the Draft Commentary was prepared on 18.05.2017 and later details were sought by the defendant. This has been denied by the defendant, and naturally, evidence will have to let in on that aspect. Similarly, the plaintiff has stated that there were no default with respect to the loan advanced by IDBI, which fact is denied by the defendant, which again implies that evidence has to be adduced. The plaintiff has further stated that the defendant has relied on default on a non-banking financial institution, and circumstances surrounding the same will have to be examined in detail. The role of Finmin requires detailed examination. All this requires adjudication on analysis of legally admissible and relevant evidence. 102. The loss suffered by the plaintiff far outweighs the damage caused to the defendant by not publishing the rating of the plaintiff. The publication of a wrong rating would cause severe loss and damage to the plaintiff. The defendant can always revise its ratings and publish them when permitted by the Court. 103. For all the reasons stated above, I hold that the order of interim injunction does not deserve interference, and consequently, the interim injunction is made absolute. In the result, O.A. No. 761 of 2017 and Appln. No. 4457 of 2017 are allowed. No costs.