Compilation Replete With AI-Generated Non-Existing Judgments: Supreme Court Drops Imposing Of Proposed Costs Noticing Death Of Litigant
The Court observed that the Advocate-on-Record sought to shift the blame to the appellants while feigning ignorance of the compilation’s contents, whereas senior counsel accepted responsibility and sought forgiveness.
Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has described as “undesirable” an incident in which a compilation of judgments filed on behalf of appellants was alleged to contain several AI-generated, non-existent decisions.
Although the Court proposed exemplary costs for the conduct, it ultimately made no order as to costs after being informed that the first appellant had died.
The Court was hearing two statutory appeals under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against an NCLAT judgment affirming orders by which the NCLT had admitted Section 7 applications and commenced the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against two corporate debtors.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih observed: “Before parting, we wish to advert to an undesirable incident that transpired in course of hearing. On behalf of the appellants, a compilation of judgments was placed on record to which the respondents raised immediate serious objection. According to them, the compilation was replete with AI generated non-existent judgments. Advocate-on-Record for the appellants, facing the Court’s query, sought to shift the entire blame on the appellants while at the same time feigning ignorance of what the compilation contained. Learned senior counsel for the appellants, in the circumstances, sought to take the blame on himself and prayed for forgiveness on behalf of the appellants.”
The Bench added: “This Court had proceeded to hear the appeal on merits keeping the objection of the respondents (that the appellants by reason of such conduct, do not deserve a hearing on merits) open. Exemplary costs were proposed to be imposed while coming down heavily on the appellants. However, lately, this Court has been informed of the death of the first appellant. It is for such reason that the order requiring payment of costs has been deleted by ‘no order as to costs’.”
Senior Advocates C. Aryama Sundaram and Arunabh Chaudhry appeared for the appellants. Advocate Abhishek Anand appeared for the respondents.
Background
The proceedings arose from loan facilities extended to GSTAAD Hotels Private Limited and Neo Capricorn Plaza Private Limited. The debt was subsequently assigned to Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited, which instituted proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC alleging default.
The NCLT admitted the insolvency petitions and commenced CIRP against both corporate debtors. Following an earlier remand by the NCLAT, the NCLT considered the matters afresh and again admitted the petitions. The NCLAT affirmed those orders, leading to the statutory appeals before the Supreme Court.
During the hearing before the Supreme Court, a compilation of judgments was placed on record for the appellants. The respondents immediately objected that it contained AI-generated decisions which did not exist and argued that the appellants’ conduct disentitled them to a hearing on merits.
Court’s Observations
The Court stated that when questioned about the compilation, the Advocate-on-Record sought to place the entire responsibility upon the appellants while professing ignorance of its contents. The Bench described this as an undesirable incident arising during the hearing.
The Court further observed that senior counsel for the appellants then sought to assume responsibility and requested forgiveness on their behalf. Despite the respondents’ contention that the conduct should disentitle the appellants to a merits hearing, the Bench proceeded to decide the appeals while keeping that objection open.
The Court stated that it had proposed exemplary costs while considering taking a serious view of the appellants’ conduct. However, it was subsequently informed that the first appellant had died.
For that reason, the Bench deleted the proposed direction requiring payment of costs and substituted it with “no order as to costs”.
The Court also referred to Order XXII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and held that the appeal did not abate upon the first appellant’s death. It consequently found that any application filed or sought to be filed to report his death and substitute his legal heirs had become redundant and stood disposed of.
Conclusion
The Apex Court dismissed both appeals and directed that the insolvency-resolution proceedings continue in accordance with law.
Cause Title: Deepak Raheja and Another v. Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1134)
Appearances
Appellants: Senior Advocates C. Aryama Sundaram and Arunabh Chaudhry; Advocate-on-Record Farrukh Rasheed; Advocates Khalid Israr, Harshita Singhal, Shakil Ahmed, Zahid Hussain and Mohd Zahid Hussain
Respondents: Advocates Abhishek Anand, Yashas J., Vaibhav Yadav, Paras Mohan Sharma, Karan Kohli, Palak Kalra, Ridhima Mehrotra, Vanshika Dhoot, Ira S. Mahajan, Varad Kohle, Saumitr Kumar, Radhika Narula and Anushna Satapathy; Advocates-on-Record Mandeep Kalra and Kanika Singhal