Re Sriram (aka Roy)
High Court · Oct 22, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The court identified that the pro se litigant relied on fabricated case law, specifically a non-existent citation. The judge attributed these errors to the litigant's use of internet research tools rather than intentional misconduct, and consequently issued no formal sanction beyond dismissing the underlying applications as meritless.
- Why the court cared
- The judge reasoned that the applicant's reliance on fake authorities, such as 'Re Muir Hunter’s Trustee in Bankruptcy', stemmed from poor internet research practices rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead the court, noting the difficulty for laypersons to verify specialized insolvency reports.
- Why it matters now
- Courts now assume invented citations come from AI, not research error — the excuse is gone.
Why this matter is tracked
In a bankruptcy proceeding, the applicant, Malathi Latha Sriram (aka Mukti Roy), appearing pro se, submitted skeleton arguments containing multiple fabricated legal citations. The court identified that the cited case 'Re Muir Hunter’s Trustee in Bankruptcy [2005] BPIR 329' does not exist. The presiding judge, Deputy ICC Judge Baister, noted that while the applicant cited numerous irrelevant or non-existent authorities, he declined to find contempt, attributing the errors to the applicant's reliance on unreliable internet research rather than intentional deception. The court dismissed the applicant's motions for disclosure and injunctions, and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Pantera Property Limited, citing the applicant's failure to establish a sustainable claim or provide necessary evidence.
Courts now assume invented citations come from AI, not research error — the excuse is gone.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
The matter involved two applications: one for disclosure and an injunction against the trustee in bankruptcy, and a second application by Pantera Property Limited to strike out the bankrupt’s claim against it. The court dismissed the applicant's motions and granted summary judgment for the defendant.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Litigant relied on a non-existent case citation which the court identified as invented; judge found the citation does not exist and likely arose from internet research error.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Re Sriram (aka Roy)?
- The court identified that the pro se litigant relied on fabricated case law, specifically a non-existent citation. The judge attributed these errors to the litigant's use of internet research tools rather than intentional misconduct, and consequently issued no formal sanction beyond dismissing the underlying applications as meritless.
- Why does Re Sriram (aka Roy) matter for legal AI risk?
- Courts now assume invented citations come from AI, not research error — the excuse is gone.
- What does the public record establish about Re Sriram (aka Roy)?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Re Sriram (aka Roy) summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.