Deepak Raheja v. Omkara Assets Reconstruction

What happened

Deepak Raheja v. Omkara Assets Reconstruction was an insolvency appeal. Two statutory appeals under section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code challenged the admission of corporate insolvency proceedings against two hotel-owning companies, GSTAAD Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Neo Capricorn Plaza Pvt. Ltd., on petitions by Omkara, an asset reconstruction company that had taken assignment of their loans. The National Company Law Tribunal admitted both petitions on remand in July 2025, and the Appellate Tribunal affirmed in August 2025. The lead appeal was Civil Appeal No. 12195 of 2025.

During the hearing in the Supreme Court, a compilation of judgments was placed on record on behalf of the appellants, and the respondents objected at once. As the judgment records it: "According to them, the compilation was replete with AI generated nonexistent judgments." The judgment does not list the judgments in the compilation, say how many were challenged, or state that the court itself verified each one.

What the court did

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih heard the appeals, and Justice Masih wrote the judgment, reported as 2026 INSC 1134. On the merits the court dismissed both appeals. It held that its section 62 jurisdiction is confined to questions of law, that a record of default from an information utility is by itself sufficient at the admission stage, and that the insolvency process should proceed.

The episode with the compilation is addressed in paragraph 74, which opens: "Before parting, we wish to advert to an undesirable incident that transpired in course of hearing." The court described the conduct of the lawyers responsible for the filing:

• Advocate-on-Record. "Advocate-on-Record for the appellants, facing the Court’s query, sought to shift the entire blame on the appellants while at the same time feigning ignorance of what the compilation contained."
• Senior counsel. Senior counsel for the appellants "sought to take the blame on himself and prayed for forgiveness on behalf of the appellants."

The court heard the appeals on the merits while keeping open the respondents' objection that, by such conduct, the appellants did not deserve a hearing at all. It then recorded: "Exemplary costs were proposed to be imposed while coming down heavily on the appellants." After the court was informed of the first appellant's death, the costs order was deleted and replaced with no order as to costs. The court added that, under Order XXII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal did not abate.

Where it stands

The Raheja appeals were dismissed and the insolvency proceedings continue before the tribunal. The judgment imposes no costs, makes no referral of the Advocate-on-Record and gives no direction to the bar. The description of the compilation as AI-generated is the respondents' objection as recorded by the court, which treated it as serious enough to propose exemplary costs; the judgment does not make a separate finding about how the compilation was prepared. LiveLaw reported the passage on the day of the judgment. No further proceeding about the compilation was located as of October 21, 2026.

Justice Datta also wrote the Supreme Court's order in Gadiya v. Union of India, which set aside a customs penalty resting on fabricated authority, and the court's earlier decision in Pooja Ramesh Singh addressed fake precedents in a decision under appeal. Raheja v. Omkara differs from both because the material came from a party's own filing in the Supreme Court.

The obligation it engaged

Clause 4 of the Standard, checkability before adoption, is the first clause engaged. A compilation of judgments exists to be checked, and in Raheja the check came from the opposing side. Clause 3, independent authority, applies to each judgment placed before the court, because a compilation adopts its contents as authority. Clause 7, contemporaneous record, is what the Advocate-on-Record lacked when he could neither say what the compilation contained nor show who prepared it.

The lesson for an expert witness concerns attachments. Experts often append bundles of literature, standards or prior decisions to a report, sometimes assembled by others. An expert who files such a bundle adopts it, and in Raheja v. Omkara the attempt to shift responsibility to the client was the conduct the court singled out.

Sources

• Advocatekhoj (text copy of the Supreme Court judgment) · October 15, 2026
  Deepak Raheja Vs. Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. [October 15, 2026]
• LiveLaw · October 15, 2026
  Supreme Court Flags AI-Generated Fake Judgments In Compilation Filed By Party

What could not be confirmed

The judgment was read from the Advocatekhoj text copy, not the official Supreme Court PDF; paragraph numbering and wording follow that copy. The judgment does not identify the nonexistent judgments, the Advocate-on-Record or senior counsel, and does not itself find that AI was used; the AI description is the respondents' objection as recorded. Advocatekhoj's headnote summary was not relied on. LiveLaw was read only for its date and summary.