Shahbaz Shah Legal Journal

Research workspace

Compare two judgments side by side.

This private browser tool does not create a new public or indexable copy of either judgment.

First judgment

Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. & Anr.

Case number
Civil Appeal No. 11950 of 2025
Citation
2026 INSC 668
Court
Supreme Court of India
Decision
July 2, 2026
Provisions
Section 7, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Section 14, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Sections 35 and 36, Advocates Act, 1961; Integrity of judicial reasoning and professional responsibility
Question
Whether NCLT and NCLAT orders that relied on nonexistent, wrongly cited, or falsely attributed precedents could remain legally valid, and what duties apply when AI-assisted legal research is used.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that reliance on fabricated or unverified authorities taints the adjudicatory process. AI may assist legal work, but advocates, judges, tribunals, and appellate bodies retain a mandatory human duty to verify every cited authority from an authentic source.
Outcome
The NCLT and NCLAT orders were set aside. The section 7 IBC application was restored to the NCLT for a fresh merits decision, preferably within two weeks, with status quo to continue meanwhile. The Court expressed no opinion on the underlying insolvency merits.
Open permanent record →

Second judgment

Mst. Bushra Bibi widow of Muhammad Zubair and others v. Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar and others

Case number
C.P.L.A. 30-L of 2025 (against Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench judgment dated 11 December 2024 in W.P. No. 9147 of 2017)
Citation
Approved for reporting; reported citation not yet assigned
Court
Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan (Original/Appellate/Advisory Jurisdiction)
Decision
July 9, 2026
Provisions
Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXXII Rules 3 and 7, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXIII Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 29, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890; Article 199, Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973; Articles 4, 9, 23, 24, 25(3), and 35, Constitution of Pakistan
Question
Whether a compromise decree affecting minors' immovable property could lawfully stand without appointment of a guardian ad litem, express leave under Order XXXII Rule 7 CPC, and required guardianship permission, and whether the High Court could reverse the revisional order under Article 199 without identifying a jurisdictional defect.
Holding
No. Courts act as parens patriae for minors. Effective representation under Order XXXII Rule 3, express and reasoned leave for compromise under Rule 7, and compliance with applicable guardianship safeguards are substantive protections. Their prejudicial breach, combined with the challenge to informed consent, brought the decree within Section 12(2). The High Court could not substitute its view for the revisional court without a jurisdictional or patent legal defect.
Outcome
Leave was granted, the petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, the Lahore High Court judgment was set aside, and the revisional judgment was restored. The compromise decree remains set aside and the original suit must be decided afresh on evidence with strict protection of the minors' rights. The Court also issued eight guidelines for Civil and Revenue Courts.
Open permanent record →