Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu & Kashmir Bank
Supreme Court · May 5, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Record ID
- pooja-ramesh-singh-v-jammu-kashmir-bank-2026-05-05
- Observed outcome
- Ongoing
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
Fabricated: Case Law | NCLT cited this Supreme Court judgment; petitioner alleges the citation/name and extracted portions are not genuine and could not be verified. Outcome: Ongoing. The NCLT Mumbai Bench cited several Supreme Court judgments in its order admitting Essel Infraprojects to CIRP. The suspended director's counsel alleged that, except for two, the cited judgments and extracted portions could not be verified and were 'hallucinated' (non-existent). The Supreme Court treated this as an integrity issue and directed an affidavit listing the disputed citations.
The matter is tracked because the public record raises an unresolved AI-related allegation. The page does not treat Ongoing as an adjudicated finding unless the linked source does so.
This matter connects fake citations and trial involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Ongoing in Supreme Court, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Ongoing
indiankanoon.org
Secondary or other linked source. The recorded link is not classified as an official court source or docket mirror.
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
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
The record concerns a public allegation and does not establish an adjudicated finding. The recorded link is a secondary or other public source and should be checked against the docket where available. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Latest evidence review: Source Unavailable (medium confidence).
Allegation status: no adjudicated finding is represented by this brief.
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Keep allegations separate from adjudicated findings in research, reporting, and client communications.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.