Concerns about such imaginary case laws being cited were raised by Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul during a hearing of a dispute tied to insolvency proceedings against Gstaad Hotels.
Representing Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt Ltd., Kaul told the Court that several case laws relied upon by the hotel’s promoter, Deepak Raheja, in a rejoinder filed before the Court “do not exist at all.”
Kaul said that Raheja’s pleadings contained numerous non-existent or fictitious judgments, including criminal law decisions presented as IBC precedents, which were possibly generated through artificial intelligence (AI) prompts.
Kaul further submitted that in many instances, the facts of the case were wrong or the same judgment was cited in multiple propositions, which was not dealt with by the original judgment.
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih took serious note of the submission. The Court orally remarked that it would “put the appellant to task” if the citations were found to be fictitious or AI-generated.
The matter will be heard next on December 8.
