##PAGE1##

2026:BHC-O S:24069-DB CNR No : HCBM020344262026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5093 OF 2026 Quanta Logistics Pvt. Ltd. ) company incorporated under the ) companies Act, 1996 having ) registerd office at No. 6, Esplande, ) II nd Floor, MA Chidambaram Building, )

Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 108 ).....Petitioner Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import-I) ) a statutory authority authority under the ) provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 ) having office ) at Adjudication Cell, New Custom House, ) Ballard Estate, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400 707 )

)

Union of India ) through the Secretary, ) Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, )

North Block, New Delhi-110001 ).....Respondents .....

Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Advocate a/w Adv. Bimal Rajasekhar and Adv. Sunand Subramaniam, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

..…

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &

SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 30^th OCTOBER 2026 Manisha 1/4 Digitally signed M BA A L N K I R S I H S A HNA b B T y A A L L M E K A K R N A IS I R S H H N A A TALEKAR Date: 2026.11.05 JUDGMENT [PER SANDESH D. PATIL, J.] :-

1. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is challenging the Order-in-Original dated 11^th August, 2026 which is at Exhibit-A to the Petition.

2. The case of the Petitioner is that the Order in question was passed by taking recourse to Artificial Intelligence (AI) without independent application of mind by the Respondent No.1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner as an example cites two non-existent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which are relied by the Respondent No.1 while passing the said Order. It is the case of the Petitioner that to the best of its knowledge these judgments do not exists in any Law Report or database and it appears to be a hallucination of AI. The Petitioner by letter dated 1^st September, 2026 requested the Respondent No.1 for copies of the said Judgments, however, the same were not provided.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya Vs. Union of India & Anr.¹. He invited our specific attention to following paragraphs:

1 2026 INSC 947

5. Such a discovery compels us to refer to the decision of this Court in Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. It happens to be a precedent dealing with the use of Al in judgments. Excerpts therefrom read:

7. It is necessary for courts to adopt a zero-tolerance mode for producing, citing or using artificial intelligence- generated precedents without verification. It is a misconduct on the part of an advocate to cite such judgments without verification. Equally, it is a serious lapse if a judge relies on such a fake or hallucinated artificial intelligence-generated material as precedents in support of the determination. We have no hesitation in declaring that such a decision is no decision in the eyes of the law, irrespective of whether such material had a direct or indirect bearing on the decision-making. Such decisions are to be set aside even if an iota of fake or hallucinated material enters the decision-making process, as it would violate the sanctity of adjudication. It is absolutely necessary to maintain integrity in decision page making, and we reiterate and declare zero tolerance for the Bar as well as the Bench to cite, refer to, or rely on such material. It is also clarified that our judgment shall have no bearing on the rightful use of artificial intelligence, but on the presentation or reliance on fake or hallucinated material as if it were a court precedent.

6. At this juncture, we may also add a comment on the use of Artificial Intelligence in adjudicatory processes. While this issue incidentally falls upon us to be considered, use of Al in the process of adjudication is not foreign. Quite the contrary, this Court has recently released draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligenc