Deepak s/o Shivkumar Bahry Vs Heart & Soul Entertainment Ltd (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court held that revisionary order which set aside eviction order is not sustainable in law. Court also held that using AI tool as aid for filing submission without verifying its content is not acceptable.
Facts- The Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned Judgment and Order dated 02.09.2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division in Revision Application u/s. 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. By the said impugned order, the revision application filed by the Respondent is allowed thereby setting aside the Judgment and Order dated 15.04.2009 passed by the Competent Authority Rent Act, Konkan Division, Mumbai in Case No. 38 of 2008 u/s. 24 of MRC Act. By the impugned order, the eviction order passed by the Competent Authority has been set aside.
Conclusion- Held that this Court strongly feels that the submissions are prepared using an AI tool such as Chat GPT or alike. A strong pointer is seen from a reference made to one alleged caselaw “Jyoti w/o Dinesh Tulsiani Vs. Elegant Associates”. Neither citation is given nor a copy of judgment is supplied by the Respondent. This Court and its law clerks were at pains to find out this caselaw but could not find. This has resulted in waste of precious judicial time. If an AI tool is used in aid of research, it is welcome; however, there is great responsibility upon the party, even an advocate using such tools, to cross verify the references and make sure that the material generated by the machine/computer is really relevant, genuine and in existence. This Court finds that the Respondent has simply filed written submissions by signing them without verifying its contents. This practice of dumping documents / submissions on the Court and making the Court go through irrelevant or non-existing material must be deprecated and nipped at bud. This is not assistance to the Court. This is a hurdle in swift delivery of justice. This Court will not take such practices kindly and it is going to result in costs. If an advocate is found to be indulging in such practice, then even stricter action of referring to Bar Council may follow.
