Mar 27, 2025 08:53 AM IST
Justice R Devdas underlined the importance of maintaining accuracy and credibility of legal citations in decisions and said the civil judge’s conduct was “disturbing”
The Karnataka high court has called for action against a civil court judge for an order last year referencing non-existent Supreme Court and Delhi high court judgments.
Justice R Devdas underlined the importance of maintaining accuracy and credibility of legal citations in decisions and said the civil judge’s conduct was “disturbing” and needed further investigation. He directed the court registry to place a copy of his order before chief justice NV Anjaria for action.
“What is more disturbing is the fact that the learned judge of city civil court has cited two decisions, which were never decided by the apex court or any other court. The learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has clearly stated that such decisions were not cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs,” said Justice Devdas on March 24, while allowing non-banking financial firm Sammaan Capital’s civil revision related to the matter.
The firm, which senior counsel Prabhuling Navadgi represented, said real estate developer Mantri Developers moved a trial court against an invocation and sale notice after defaulting on the loans granted in 2018. Samman Capital opposed the proceedings and filed an application challenging the trial court’s jurisdiction. The court of the IX additional city civil and sessions judge, Bengaluru, dismissed the application.
In November last year, the trial court judge said she relied upon three judgments to hold that her court has the jurisdiction to “try the suit” of Mantri Developers.
The civil judge cited Supreme Court’s “M/s Jalan trading co pvt ltd vs Millenium telecom ltd in civil appeal number 5860/2010” and “Kvalrner Cimentation India vs Achil builders in civil appeal number 6074/2018,” and the Delhi high court’s “SK Gopal vs UNI Deritend LTD CS 1114/2016”.
Navadgi told the Karnataka high court that there were no records for the three judgments. He added the parties did not cite these judgments during the hearing before the trial court.
The counsel for the respondent developer confirmed the cases were not cited. The advocates blamed the artificial intelligence for fraudulent citations. “It happens sometimes when one uses artificial intelligence and chatbots such as ChatGPT, AI might generate fictional results. It sometimes makes things up. I do not know what happened here, but these judgments do not exist,” Navadgi told the court.