Delhi High Court: In an appeal under Section 13, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 challenging a Commercial Court decree awarding ₹1,08,80,000 towards loss of profits, a Division Bench of Prathiba M. Singh and Madhu Jain, JJ., issued notice and stayed the operation of the impugned judgment, prima facie observing that the grant of the entire ticket revenue as loss of profits appeared untenable. The dispute arose out of a transaction wherein the respondent, a tour operator, had booked 640 airline tickets with the appellant, operating under the name “Akasa Air”.
The Court also took note of the appellant’s contention that the impugned judgment appeared to have been drafted using artificial intelligence software, citing alleged reliance on non-existent propositions of law and improper distinction of precedents. While observing that the manner of drafting raised a prima facie impression of possible use of AI tools, the Court held that no conclusive finding could be returned at this stage and cautioned that attribution of non-existent propositions to judicial precedents would be a matter of serious concern. Accordingly, subject to deposit of ₹20 lakhs, the impugned judgment was stayed and the matter was directed to be listed for further hearing.
Also Read: Delhi Court decrees Rs. 1.08 Crores suit against Akasa Air | SCC Times
Background
The present appeal under Section 13, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was filed challenging the judgment dated 24 February 2026 passed by the District Judge (Commercial)-02, South-East District, Saket Courts in CS (Comm) No. 322 of 2024, whereby a decree of ₹1,08,80,000 was awarded against the appellant. The dispute arises from a transaction wherein the respondent, a tour operator, had booked 640 airline tickets with the appellant, which operates under the name “Akasa Air”. Owing to certain disputes between the parties, the respondent instituted a commercial suit claiming, inter alia, loss of profits. The Commercial Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent.
Assailing the impugned judgment, the appellant has raised two principal grounds. Firstly, it is contended that the judgment appears to have been drafted using artificial intelligence software, as is evident from the reliance on non-existent propositions of law attributed to established judicial precedents, as well as the alleged improper distinction of authorities cited by the appellant. In this regard, the appellant has placed reliance on a tabulated chart highlighting discrepancies in the case laws referred to by the trial court. Secondly, it is argued that the award of the entire ticket revenue as loss of profits is legally unsustainable and contrary to settled principles governing damages.
Analysis
The Court having heard the parties and perused the impugned judgment as also the chart placed on record highlighting the alleged attribution of non-existent propositions of law to judgments of the Supreme Court. Upon a prima facie examination, the manner of drafting of the impugned judgment, particularly the portions distinguishing case laws, gives an impression that certain artificial intelligence software may have been used. However, the Court has observed that, at this stage, no conclusive finding can be returned as to whether any such software was in fact used by the District Judge or whether the judgment, if so assisted, was duly reviewed. The Court has further noted that attribution of non-existent propositions to judicial precedents would be a matter of serious concern.
Insofar as the second submission of the appellant is concerned, the Court, upon perusal of Para 19 of the plaint wherein the Respondent claimed loss of profits calculated at Rs 17,000 per ticket × 640 seats, observed that the total cost of the subject tickets was ₹ 1,08,80,000, and the said entire amount, representing the appellant’s revenue, has been awarded to the respondent towards loss of profits. The Court has prima facie held that the entire cost of tickets could not have been granted as loss of profits.
Decision
Accordingly, the Court has issued notice in the appeal, which has been accepted by counsel for the respondent. The operation of the impugned judgment has been stayed, subject to deposit of ₹20 lakhs by the appellant with the Registrar General on or before 30 May 2026. The trial court record has been directed to be requisitioned, and the matter has been listed for hearing on 20 August 2026.
[SNV Aviation (P) Ltd v. ABS Tour and Travels, RFA(COMM) 284 of 2026, decided on 30-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Gaurav Gupta, Shouryendu Ray, Neelu Mohan, Istela Jameel, and Yashendra Singhwal, Advocates
For the Respondent: Abhinay Sharma, Atul Sharma, Deeksha Prakash, Pooran Roy Chand and Sakshi Tripathi, Advocates