Karnataka HC orders probe into lower court judge citing non-existent Supreme Court verdict in order

Justice Devdas stated, “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. This act on the part of the learned judge would require further probe and appropriate action in accordance with the law.”

Justice Devdas observed in his order, “The trial court seems to have placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Jalan Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., /vs./ Millennium Telecom Ltd., in a Civil Appeal and another case in M/s Kvalrner Cemintation India Ltd., /vs./ M/s.Achil Builders Pvt. Ltd., in Civil Appeal No.6074/2018. 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.”

Disagreeing with the conclusion of the Civil Court, the High Court also stated in the order, “It is unacceptable that the entities who had earlier filed a Commercial Suit, would withdraw the suit, without liberty and thereafter filed a suit before the civil court impleading some other entities……”

Senior counsel Prabhuling Navadgi, appearing for the finance companies, said sources such as AI could produce nonexistent judgments.

According to the petitioners, they had provided loans to a group of real estate companies, one of whom defaulted upon the loan. When the finance companies issued a notice to transfer the shares of two of the real estate companies as per the pledge agreement in 2024, the companies approached the Commercial Court Bengaluru last year to restrain such action. They, however, withdrew the suit to file a fresh one. The companies, instead, approached the City Civil Court to hear their matter, which was opposed by the NBFCs.

The Civil Court judge then passed the currently challenged order rejecting the contention of the finance companies that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear their dispute.