Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd.

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 668Decided 2 Jul 2026
C.A. No.-011950 - 2025
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Alok Aradhe

Background

The appellant, a suspended director of a corporate guarantor company (Essel Infraprojects Ltd.), challenged insolvency proceedings initiated against the company by Jammu and Kashmir Bank over defaulted loans owed by a group company. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had admitted the bank's insolvency application and this was upheld by the NCLAT on appeal. Crucially, the appellant's counsel discovered that several of the case citations the NCLT relied on to reject the appellant's arguments about the guarantee were fake, non-existent, or misquoted - apparently generated by artificial intelligence and never actually verified.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court independently checked each of the six precedents cited by the NCLT and confirmed that some were wrongly cited, some had correct case names but fabricated quoted paragraphs, and some did not exist at all. The bank confirmed its own lawyers had not cited these cases - meaning the tribunal itself had generated or sourced this fake material, and the appellate tribunal (NCLAT) failed to catch the error either. The Court held that any decision tainted by fake or hallucinated material, however minor, is "no decision in the eyes of the law" and must be set aside, declaring zero tolerance for both lawyers and judges who cite unverified AI-generated case law. Both the NCLT and NCLAT orders were set aside, and the insolvency application was sent back for fresh consideration, with a direction that the Bar Council of India form a committee to address advocates submitting fabricated AI-generated material as precedent.

Lesson Learnt

Artificial intelligence tools can fabricate convincing-looking case citations and quotations that do not actually exist ("hallucinations"), and courts, tribunals, and lawyers must independently verify every precedent before relying on it - a decision built even partly on fake legal authority has no legal validity at all and will be struck down.

Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware