Sammaan Capital Ltd v. Mantri Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, CRP No. 49 of 2025
In India, the Karnataka High Court (24 March 2025) found that a Bengaluru City Civil Court judge had decided a jurisdiction question by relying on two Supreme Court judgments that were never delivered. Justice Devdas called the conduct disturbing and directed that the order be placed before the Chief Justice for action against the trial judge.
- Court
- High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru
- Date
- 2025-03-24
- Who used the AI
- Not recorded
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- A Bengaluru City Civil Court judge, rejecting a jurisdictional objection, based the order on two Supreme Court decisions that were never delivered by any court. On revision, the High Court found the citations fabricated and directed action against the trial judge. No AI tool is named in the order.
- Outcome
- Regulatory referral
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Verified against listed sources
- Last checked
- Not separately recorded
What was fabricated or misused
- M/s. Jalan Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Millenium Telecom Ltd., Civil Appeal No.5860/2010 — no such Supreme Court decision was rendered
- M/s.Kvalrner Cemintation India Ltd. v. M/s.Achil Builders Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No.6074/2018 — no such Supreme Court decision was rendered
What the court said
“However, the learned Senior Counsel submits that on careful search, it is found that no such decision is rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court.”
“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.”
“Copy of this order shall be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice, for further action against the learned judge.”
Timeline
- Defendant No. 1 invoked the pledge agreement and issued a sale notice.
- The plaintiffs withdrew their commercial suit as not pressed.
- The City Civil Court rejected the defendants' Order VII Rule 10 application.
- The civil revision petition was heard and reserved.
- The High Court allowed the revision petition and directed action.
- The parties were directed to appear before the City Civil Court.
Why this case matters
Sammaan Capital is different from lawyer-filed hallucination cases such as Mavundla v MEC and Harber v HMRC. The questioned authorities appeared in a trial judge's own order, and counsel for the party that benefited from the order said they had not cited them. The High Court did not identify any AI tool, so the record matters as a judicial-use warning rather than a confirmed chatbot incident. It also shows why the tracker records fabricated legal authority even when the source of fabrication remains unresolved.
Practice note
A court order should cite only authorities that can be found in an official database or recognised reporter. If a judge relies on a case not cited by either side, the citation and holding still need independent verification before the order is issued. Lawyers reviewing an adverse order should check unfamiliar authorities promptly and raise the issue with the appellate court using the exact citation that cannot be found.
Primary sources for this incident
Related regulation records for this incident
No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.
Similar incidents on the record
- Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 9472026-09-02 · Supreme Court of India · OtherExtending Pooja Ramesh Singh from tribunals to executive adjudicators, the Supreme Court of India set aside a customs penalty order of INR 4.25 billion, and the High Court judgment upholding it, because the order relied…
- Faiz Enterprise v. State Tax Officer, Unit-67, Surat, R/SCA No. 10123 of 2026 (Gujarat High Court)2026-08-20 · High Court of Gujarat · OtherThe High Court of Gujarat quashed a GST registration-cancellation order after finding that the state tax officer had relied on AI-generated, nonexistent and misattributed case law. After the officer admitted using AI, t…
- Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, W.P.(C) 6049/2026 (Delhi High Court)2026-07-17 · High Court of Delhi · OtherTwo weeks after the Supreme Court of India's Pooja Ramesh Singh ruling, the High Court of Delhi set aside an income-tax appellate order that rested on six nonexistent judgments, calling any order built on fake precedent…
- Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. & Anr., 2026 INSC 6682026-07-02 · Supreme Court of India · OtherIndia's Supreme Court (Justices Narasimha and Aradhe) set aside NCLT and NCLAT orders that had relied on fake, AI-hallucinated precedents, holding a decision resting even partly on fabricated authority is 'no decision i…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Sammaan Capital Ltd v. Mantri Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, CRP No. 49 of 2025”, safelegalai.com/tracker/sammaan-capital-v-mantri (accessed 2026-09-16). Data: CC BY 4.0.