Sarbjit Singh v. Union Bank of India does not exist — a fabricated AI citation

“Sarbjit Singh v. Union Bank of India, (2022) 7 SCC 464” was relied on by the National Company Law Tribunal in the proceeding that became Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. & Anr. The Supreme Court of India found this citation, like two others cited in the same order, to be non-existent — no such Supreme Court Cases entry exists at that volume and page.

This is the third fabricated case name identified in a single NCLT order in this same underlying dispute, alongside ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Ltd. and V.S. Dempo & Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Communications Ltd. Three invented precedents, plus multiple real cases quoted for paragraphs the Supreme Court found do not actually exist in those reported judgments, made this one of the most thoroughly AI-compromised rulings documented anywhere in Citation Safe's sanctions database.

The systemic scale of the fabrication is why the Supreme Court's remedy went beyond the individual case: rather than simply correcting the record, it set aside the NCLT and NCLAT orders outright, restored the original Section 7 insolvency petition to be reheard, and directed the Bar Council of India to formulate binding guidance on AI-generated legal citations — a rare instance of a single ruling driving nationwide bar-regulation policy. Insolvency and bankruptcy tribunals move quickly and handle heavy caseloads, conditions that make them a plausible pressure point for exactly this kind of unverified-citation shortcut — a risk factor worth flagging for any high-volume adjudicative body considering AI-assisted drafting tools.