Mr. Deepak s/o Shivkumar Bahry v. Heart & Soul Entertainment Ltd.
HC Bombay · Jan 7, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- HC Bombay
- Record ID
- mr-deepak-so-shivkumar-bahry-v-heart-soul-entertainment-ltd-2026-01-07
- Observed outcome
- The court allowed the Petitioner's writ petition, restored the eviction order, and ordered the Respondent to pay Rs. 50,000 in costs to the High Court Employees Medical Fund.
- Known monetary consequence
- $1
Why this matter warrants attention
The High Court of Bombay imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on a pro se litigant after determining that the party submitted AI-generated written filings containing a fabricated case citation. The court explicitly deprecated the practice of filing unverified AI-generated material, characterizing it as a hurdle to the swift delivery of justice.
Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent's written submissions cited a non-existent case "Jyoti w/o Dinesh Tulsiani Vs. Elegant Associates" with no citation or copy; court and law clerks could not locate it and concluded submissions likely AI-generated, causing wasted judicial time.
Even nominal pro-se cost awards signal courts now detect AI-fabricated citations routinely.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (e.g., ChatGPT or alike)
- Known monetary consequence
- $1
- Procedural posture
- Writ Petition challenging an order of the Revisional Authority (Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division) regarding an eviction application under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court identified the submissions as likely generated by 'an AI tool such as Chat GPT or alike'.
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.