The Karnataka High Court has taken serious note of a trial court judge citing non-existent Supreme Court judgments while rejecting an application filed under Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The court has ordered an investigation and appropriate action against the judge in question.

Case Background

The case originated when Sammaan Capital Limited, a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC), filed a petition challenging the trial court's order dated November 25, 2024. The trial court had rejected their application for the return of a plaint filed by Mantri Infrastructure Private Limited. The application was made under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC, arguing that the suit involved commercial disputes and fell under the jurisdiction of a commercial court.

Read also:- Karnataka High Court Reserves Order on Plea to Ban Proton Mail in India, Calls for Central Government Action

Senior Advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi, representing the petitioners, pointed out that the trial judge had cited non-existent Supreme Court judgments in their ruling. He stated, “The judgment cites Supreme Court orders which do not exist... If such non-existent judgments are relied upon, it is a really sorry state of affairs... Sometimes AI-generated research can lead to such wrong conclusions.”

The cited cases that were found to be non-existent include:

• 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)

High Court's Observations

The Karnataka High Court, upon reviewing the case records, found multiple reasons why the trial court should have allowed the application for returning the plaint.

1. Improper Suit Withdrawal
   The plaintiffs, who had previously filed a commercial suit, did not obtain the court’s permission to withdraw the suit and refile it in a civil court. The court remarked, “It is unacceptable that entities who earlier filed a Commercial Suit would withdraw it without liberty and then file a suit before the civil court, including entities that were not even issued demand notices by the defendants.”

Read also:- Karnataka High Court Upholds Leave Encashment As A Fundamental Property Right Under Article 300A

1. Jurisdictional Issues
   The High Court found that the demand notices issued by the defendants were limited to specific plaintiffs. Only those plaintiffs who had received these notices had a legitimate grievance. “Such plaintiffs could not have included other entities who were not issued notices, seeking redressal of their grievance in a court lacking jurisdiction.”
2. Serious Concern Over Non-Existent Judgments
   The court was alarmed that the trial judge had cited fabricated Supreme Court decisions. The High Court stated, “The act of citing two non-existent Supreme Court judgments is deeply concerning and warrants further investigation and appropriate action against the trial judge.”

High Court's Verdict

Allowing the civil revision petition, the Karnataka High Court ruled:

• The interlocutory application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC is allowed.
• The case is remitted to the 9th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, to allow the plaintiffs to file an application in terms of Rule 10A(2) of Order VII.
• The plaintiffs must file the application by April 2, 2025, failing which the plaint shall be returned.

Read also:- Karnataka High Court Stresses Gender Inclusivity in Tumakuru Bar Association Elections

Additionally, the High Court directed that a copy of the order be placed before the Chief Justice of Karnataka for further action against the trial judge.

Legal Representation

• For Petitioners: Senior Advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi with Advocate Chintan Chinnappa M
• For Respondents (R1 to R9): Senior Advocate Shyam Sundar M S with Advocate B.K.S Sanjay

Case Details

• Case Title: Sammaan Capital Limited vs. Mantri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Others
• Case Number: CRP 49/2025
• Court: Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru
• Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Devdas
• Order Date: March 24, 2025