NBFC Moves Karnataka High Court Alleging Trial Court Cited 'Non-Existing Judgments' To Reject Its Claim

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (January 28) heard a petition wherein it is claimed that the trial court relied on non-existing judgments on the records of the respective courts to pass an order rejecting the application filed for return of plaint.Senior Advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi appearing for the petitioner Sammaan Capital Limited, a Non-Banking Finance Company submitted before Justice R Devdas and said, “The judgment cites supreme court orders which are non existent...if such non existent judgments are relied upon..it's really a sorry state of affairs..sometimes AI generated research..gives such wrong conclusions”. The petitioners questioned the order of the trial court dated November 25, 2024, by which the application filed under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Civil procedure Code, seeking return of plaint filed by Mantri Infrastructure Private Limited, came to be rejected. The high court heard the matter and posted it for further hearing to February 5 directing the trial court to not precipitate on the matter till the next date of hearing. Counsel for respondents argued that if there is citation of judgement which is not existing then there is something very serious. I am only instructed that they (respondents) have not relied upon this.The petitioners claimed that Trial Court in the impugned order has relied upon the following judgments: a. M/s. Jalan Trading Co., Pvt. Ltd., Vs Millenium Telecom Ltd. Civil Appeal No.5860/2010 (Hon'ble Supreme Court)b. M/s. Kvalrner Cimentation India Ltd., Vs M/s, Achil Builders Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No.6074/2018 (Hon'ble Supreme Court)c. M/s. S.K.Gopal Vs M/s. UNI Deritend Ltd., (CS (Comm) 1114/2016 (Hon'ble Delhi High Court)It is claimed in the plea that the above-mentioned manufactured judgments are the sole basis and reasoning given by the Trial Court for rejecting the plea of the Defendants that the suit involves commercial disputes and comes under the jurisdiction of commercial court. The plea further states “To the knowledge of the Defendant No. 2 & 3, the said judgments were neither produced by the Defendants nor the Plaintiffs at the time of arguments. Reliance on such non-existing judgments creates serious doubts on the judicial Institutions and would lead to passing of fraudulent orders.” The dispute between the parties is regarding non-payment of the debt by the plaintiffs (Mantri) and complete ignorance to clear their defaults mentioned in the Acceleration Notice. Initially the respondents approached the Commercial Court by filing a Commercial Suit but had later withdrawn it without liberty to file afresh. The Plaintiffs for reasons best known to them did not pursue the Commercial Suit and moved a memo to withdraw the same and the Commercial Suit was withdrawn without liberty to file afresh videSubsequently the respondents filed the suit on the original side, seeking almost identical reliefs like injunction against the Invocation Notice, déclaration that the debts have been discharged, injunction against SARFAESI and NCLT proceedings and other reliefs.Following which the petitioners filed the application wherein the impugned order came to be passed. Case Title: SAMMAAN CAPITAL LIMITED AND MANTRI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD & OthersCase No: CRP 49/2025

NBFC Moves Karnataka High Court Alleging Trial Court Cited 'Non-Existing Judgments' To Reject Its Claim

Mustafa Plumber

Tags