Karnataka HC reviews trial court’s use of non-existent judgments in commercial dispute case
Bengaluru (PTI): The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday heard a petition challenging a trial court order that allegedly cited non-existent Supreme Court and High Court judgments to reject an application for the return of plaint.
The high court has stayed further action by the trial court until the next hearing on February 5. The upcoming proceedings are expected to provide clarity on judicial reliance on AI-generated legal research and its impact on case rulings.
The petition was filed by Sammaan Capital Limited, a non-banking finance company, contesting the November 25, 2024 order of the trial court.
The case is linked to a commercial dispute involving Mantri Infrastructure Private Limited and the alleged non-payment of debt.
Senior advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi, representing Sammaan Capital, argued before Justice R Devdas that the trial court had referenced judgments that do not exist. He said that the order relied on fabricated case citations.
“If such non-existent judgments are relied upon, it is a sorry state of affairs. Sometimes AI-generated research gives wrong conclusions,” he argued.
The contentious trial court order was based on references to: M/s. Jalan Trading Co., Pvt. Ltd. Vs Millenium Telecom Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 5860/2010, Supreme Court); M/s. Kvalrner Cimentation India Ltd. Vs M/s. Achil Builders Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 6074/2018, Supreme Court); M/s. S.K. Gopal Vs M/s. UNI Deritend Ltd. (CS (Comm) 1114/2016, Delhi High Court).
The petitioners claim these judgments do not exist and were not introduced as evidence by either party during the hearing, raising serious concerns over the trial court’s credibility.
The dispute arose over non-payment of debt by Mantri Infrastructure. The plaintiffs initially filed a commercial suit but later withdrew it without permission to refile. They, then, filed a fresh suit under the civil jurisdiction, seeking injunctions against SARFAESI and NCLT proceedings, and a declaration that their debts had been discharged.
The trial court, however, rejected the defendants’ application under Order VII Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, which sought the return of plaint—a decision now being contested before the high court.
The case has triggered a debate among legal professionals about the risks of unverified AI-generated research in court proceedings.
Supreme Court lawyer Vamshi Polsani criticised AI dependence, stating, “A lawyer’s analysis, research, and framing of arguments cannot be delegated to software or technology. AI can’t be depended upon.”
Advocate Vishwaja Rao echoed similar concerns, adding, “AI should be used to make legal work efficient, not a shortcut for accuracy.”
Former Telangana High Court judge Challa Kodanda Ram acknowledged AI’s usefulness but warned, “AI often gets legal principles right but can mix up citations. If the principle is correct, a citation error shouldn’t impact the outcome.”
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Former South Korean President Yoon receives life sentence for imposing martial law
Seoul (AP): Former President Yoon Suk Yeol was sentenced to life in prison for his brief imposition of martial law in December 2024.
Judge Jee Kui-youn said he found Yoon guilty of rebellion for mobilizing military and police forces in an illegal attempt to seize the liberal-led National Assembly, arrest politicians and establish unchecked power for a “considerable” time.
Yoon is likely to appeal the verdict.
A special prosecutor had demanded the death penalty for Yoon, saying his actions posed a threat to the country's democracy and deserved the most serious punishment available, but most analysts expect a life sentence since the poorly-planned power grab did not result in casualties.
ALSO READ: IIT-Madras to establish applied AI innovation centre in Dubai
South Korea has not executed a death row inmate since 1997, in what is widely seen as a de facto moratorium on capital punishment amid calls for its abolition.
As Yoon arrived in court, hundreds of police officers watched closely as Yoon supporters rallied outside a judicial complex, their cries rising as the prison bus transporting him drove past. Yoon's critics gathered nearby, demanding the death penalty.
The court also convicted and sentenced several former military and police officials involved in enforcing Yoon's martial law decree, including ex-Defense Minister Kim Yong Hyun, who received a 30-year jail term for his central role in planning the measure and mobilizing the military.
Yoon, a staunch conservative, has defended his martial law decree as necessary to stop liberals, whom he described as “anti-state” forces, from obstructing his agenda with their legislative majority.
The decree lasted about six hours before being lifted after a quorum of lawmakers managed to break through a military blockade and unanimously voted to lift the measure.
Yoon was suspended from office on December 14, 2024, after being impeached by lawmakers and was formally removed by the Constitutional Court in April 2025. He has been under arrest since last July while facing multiple criminal trials, with the rebellion charge carrying the most severe punishment.
Last month, Yoon was sentenced to five years in prison for resisting arrest, fabricating the martial law proclamation and sidestepping a legally mandated full Cabinet meeting before declaring the measure.
The Seoul Central Court has also convicted two of Yoon's Cabinet members in other cases. That includes Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, who received a 23-year prison sentence for attempting to legitimize the decree by forcing it through a Cabinet Council meeting, falsifying records and lying under oath. Han has appealed the verdict.
