# Justis AI — full context > Justis is where legal work gets done. One AI associate for Indian legal work: research with verified citations, drafting and redlining, document review and due diligence, meeting transcripts, and matter workspaces the whole team works in. Last updated: 2026-10-06 Short version: https://askjustis.com/llms.txt Positioning: where legal work gets done. One associate. Everything legal. Legal AI built on Indian law and Indian courts, for everyone who does legal work in India, with transparent pricing, a free 7-day trial, self-serve sign-up, and Supreme Court and High Court judgments on every plan. You only pay for the work it does. Comparisons with ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini: https://askjustis.com/compare Justis AI is a software subscription for legal professionals, not a law firm, and does not provide legal advice. Every AI output is a draft for a qualified lawyer to verify. Matter content is confidential, is never sold, and is never used to train shared models. Data is hosted in India. ## Products - AI Legal Associate (https://askjustis.com/products/associates): AI legal associate for Indian practice: research case law, draft and redline documents, and analyse files from one workspace, on a plan you approve first. - Matters (matter workspaces) (https://askjustis.com/products/matters): A structured workspace for every matter. Keep documents, timelines and AI output in one place, shared with your whole team or only the people who need access. - Tabular Review (https://askjustis.com/products/tabular-review): Due diligence at scale: ask your questions once across a whole document set and get a structured comparison, every answer linked to its source clause. - Case Law (https://askjustis.com/products/case-law): 16M+ Supreme Court and High Court judgments, Order.law orders and 22,000+ central Acts, searched by legal concept. Every result traceable. Free to search on every plan. - Digital Twin (https://askjustis.com/products/digital-twin): An AI persona built from your own work: Justis learns your drafting style and clause preferences once, then applies them in every session. - Memory (https://askjustis.com/products/memory): Every clause, precedent and matter your firm touches becomes institutional knowledge, applied automatically the next time. - Interns (https://askjustis.com/products/interns): Parallel AI interns that process your documents at the same time, so review capacity scales without scaling the team. ## Pricing - Free 7-day trial with 100 credits; Pro ₹999/month with 500 credits; Ultra ₹3,999/month with 2,000 credits; Custom for firms and legal departments. Prices in Indian rupees, taxes included. https://askjustis.com/pricing ## Solutions by role ### Litigators URL: https://askjustis.com/for/litigators Walk into the hearing knowing the record cold. Petitions, replies, orders and annexures land as one pile. Justis reads all of it, builds the chronology, flags the limitation point, and tells you which Supreme Court or High Court authority actually governs the question you are arguing. Every citation links to the paragraph it came from. What Justis does for this practice: - Every date, event and document, mapped: A matter arrives as a petition, three replies and a bundle of annexures. Justis reads all of it and builds the dated chronology, each entry carrying the document it came from, so the sequence you argue from is the record's own rather than a note someone typed on the way to court. - Find the holes before opposing counsel does: Every issue is read from both sides at once and scored: who is actually stronger on it, why, and the page that decides it. The weak points surface while there is still time to plead around them. - Compare testimony and surface the contradictions: Statements, depositions and cross-examination read side by side. Justis puts each witness in a column and every disputed fact in a row, so a contradiction is something you see rather than something you remember. - Upload the case once, ask across it for its whole life: Every document in the matter sits in one project, read and indexed the moment it lands. Ask one question and it is answered for every file at once, and the same holds in eight months when the record has doubled and the junior who uploaded it has moved on. Questions: - Q: Does it cover High Courts, or only the Supreme Court? A: Both. The corpus runs to over 16 million Supreme Court and High Court judgments, reported and unreported, and you can restrict a search to one High Court when the point turns on local practice. - Q: How do I know a citation is real? A: Every authority the associate cites links to the paragraph of the judgment it came from, and the quoted words are verified against the source text before they are shown. If the words cannot be found, the citation is flagged rather than presented as checked. - Q: Can it read a scanned or handwritten FIR or order? A: Yes. Scanned PDFs are run through OCR, and the associate tells you it is reading a scan so you know transcription errors are possible. Where the handwriting is illegible it says so instead of guessing. - Q: Will it draft in our chambers' style? A: Once you train the digital twin on a handful of your own drafts, yes. It learns how you structure a reply, how you cite and how you address the court, and applies that to every new draft. Edits arrive as tracked changes you accept or reject in Word. - Q: Is client material safe to upload? A: Documents and chats are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. - Q: What does it cost for a single practitioner? A: Every account starts with a 7-day trial of 100 credits. Pro is ₹999 a month with 500 credits of usage, and you pay only the real cost of each research or drafting run against those credits. ### Corporate URL: https://askjustis.com/for/corporate Sign off knowing what the record actually says. Corporate work is a paper trail: resolutions, filings, registers and the agreements that depend on them. Justis reads them together, checks what the Companies Act requires at each step, and shows you the page behind every conclusion so a sign-off carries its own working. What Justis does for this practice: - The corporate record, in order and complete: Every resolution, filing and register entry laid out in sequence with the document behind it, so a missing form or an unfiled return is visible rather than discovered by the registrar. - Where the company is exposed, and on what page: Each compliance point weighed against the file: what is done, what is late, what is missing entirely, with the document that decides it. - One question, asked of every agreement the company holds: Change of control, assignment, exclusivity and termination rights pulled from the whole contract base at once, with the clause behind every cell. - Your negotiating positions, applied to every agreement: Write the company's positions down once as a playbook. Every incoming agreement is then read against them, the offending clause is quoted back to you, and the position you take is already drafted. - Review and redline, as tracked changes in Word: The changes land on the original file as Word tracked changes, each with the reason beside it, so the counterparty sees a markup they recognise and you accept or reject clause by clause. Questions: - Q: Does it know the Companies Act? A: It searches the Indian law collection of Acts, rules and regulator documents, including MCA material, alongside Supreme Court and High Court decisions. Every conclusion links to the provision or judgment it rests on, and where a point is unsettled it says so. - Q: Can it check our whole contract base at once? A: Yes. Tabular review asks the same question of every agreement in a matter and returns a grid with the answer, the clause and the page for each, exportable to Excel for the board pack. - Q: Will it file forms for us? A: No. It reads the record, tells you what is done, late or missing, and drafts what you ask for. Filing stays with you and your secretarial team. - Q: Does it handle scanned minute books? A: Yes. Scanned documents go through OCR first, and the associate tells you when it is working from a scan so you know transcription errors are possible. - Q: Is company data kept confidential? A: Documents are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. - Q: What does it cost? A: Every account starts with a 7-day trial of 100 credits. Pro is ₹999 a month with 500 credits, Ultra is ₹3,999 with 2,000, and larger teams are on the Custom plan. ### M&A URL: https://askjustis.com/for/m-and-a Read the whole data room, not a sample of it. Diligence runs out of time before it runs out of documents. Justis answers your diligence questions across every file in the room at once, ranks what actually threatens the deal, and shows the clause and page behind each finding so the report defends itself. What Justis does for this practice: - One structured view of the entire data room: Point it at the whole set: customer contracts, employment agreements, IP assignments, financing papers. It reads every one, pulls the terms that decide the deal into a grid, and flags what matters, with the clause behind each cell. - Risks flagged before you start: Give it the SPA and the side you act for. It returns a buyer-side issues list: the clause, the problem in one line, and why it actually matters, so the first-pass review starts from an argument rather than a read-through. - Your strongest position for every clause: Give it the clause and the side you act for. It maps the market-standard positions and drafts alternatives from aggressive to middle ground, each with the commercial reason behind it, in language you can use on the call. - The disclosure schedule, built from the room itself: Each warranty checked against what the documents actually show, so the schedule is drafted from the record rather than from what the founders remember. Questions: - Q: How many documents can it review at once? A: A project holds the whole data room, and tabular review asks your question of every document in it, returning the clause and page behind each answer. There is no practical need to sample. - Q: Can it draft the disclosure schedule? A: It checks each warranty against what the documents show and tells you what needs disclosing and why, with the source. You keep the drafting decision; it removes the reading. - Q: Does it handle scanned and non-English documents? A: Scanned files go through OCR first, and it reads Hindi and other Indian languages. It tells you when it is working from a scan so you know transcription errors are possible. - Q: Can two teams work the same room? A: Yes. A project is shared, so everyone on the deal sees the same files, reviews and chats rather than a handover email. - Q: Is the data room safe to upload? A: Documents are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the deal, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. - Q: How is it priced for a deal team? A: Pro is ₹999 a month with 500 credits and Ultra is ₹3,999 with 2,000. Teams needing seats, shared workspaces and role controls are on the Custom plan. ### In-house counsel URL: https://askjustis.com/for/in-house Answer the business before the deal moves on. Legal is one team and the whole company sends it work: vendor contracts, NDAs, the policy a regulator now expects, a question from sales that needed an answer yesterday. Justis reviews each against the positions you have set, redlines the paper in Word, drafts the memo, and shows the clause behind every answer so the business gets a yes it can act on. What Justis does for this practice: - Your positions, applied to every contract the business sends: The liability cap you hold, the renewal you never accept, the data terms you insist on: set once as a playbook and applied to every agreement that comes in, so the first pass is done before you open the file. - Redlined in Word, with the reason beside each change: The markup lands on the counterparty's own file as tracked changes, each with a one-line reason, so procurement can send it straight back and you accept or reject clause by clause. - Compliance memos from the rule to the action: A new rule lands and the board wants to know what changes. The associate reads the notification against your policies and contracts and drafts the memo: what applies, what is already covered, what has to change and by when, each point cited to the provision. - One question, asked of every contract the company holds: Which agreements auto-renew this quarter, which carry a change-of-control clause, which still name a supplier the company has dropped: asked once across the whole contract base, answered in a grid with the clause and page for each. Questions: - Q: Can it apply our own positions rather than generic ones? A: Yes. A playbook holds the positions and fallbacks you set, per contract type, and the associate applies it to every agreement it reviews. Change a position once and every later review follows it. - Q: Does it work on the counterparty's Word file? A: Yes. Redlines land as tracked changes on the original .docx with a comment giving the reason, so the other side sees a markup they recognise and you accept or reject clause by clause in Word. - Q: Can non-lawyers in the business use it? A: You decide. Shared workspaces carry role controls, so a procurement or HR team can run a playbook review or ask a question of the contract base while the positions themselves stay with legal. - Q: Is company data kept confidential? A: Documents are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. Data is hosted in India. - Q: Does it connect to our contract repository? A: It connects to your drive, database and calendar over MCP and answers from live records, so a question about the contract base runs against what the company actually holds. - Q: How is it priced for a legal team? A: Pro is ₹999 a month with 500 credits and Ultra is ₹3,999 with 2,000. Teams that need seats, shared workspaces with role controls and company-wide memory are on the Custom plan. ### Real estate URL: https://askjustis.com/for/real-estate Certify title on the record, not on a summary. A title search is a stack of sale deeds, mutation entries, encumbrance certificates and khata extracts, most of them scanned. Justis reads them together, builds the chain of title, flags the break in it, and tells you which document the defect actually sits in. What Justis does for this practice: - The chain of title, document by document: Every transfer in the chain laid out in order, each link carrying the deed it comes from, so a missing mutation or an unregistered transfer is visible rather than inferred. - Diligence without the busywork: Title reports, surveys, environmental checks and leases arrive scattered, and you read all of it just to find what is wrong. Upload the package, ask once, and the issues come back summarised and ranked, with the document behind each. - All your leases in one structured view: Lease review turns into copy-paste: rent, term, renewal and assignment scattered across documents. Justis pulls the key terms from every lease into one table, so you can compare, spot the gap, and move. - Ask the associate, get the answer with the deed attached: The questions that decide a transaction are rarely in one document. Ask in plain words and the associate reads across the package, reaches a view, and cites the deed and page it rests on. Questions: - Q: Can it read scanned deeds and old registers? A: Yes. Scanned documents go through OCR before anything is read, and the associate tells you when it is working from a scan so you know transcription errors are possible. Where handwriting is genuinely illegible it says so rather than guessing. - Q: Does it understand Indian land records? A: It reads what you give it: sale deeds, mutation entries, khata extracts, encumbrance certificates, conversion orders and survey maps. It builds the chain from those documents rather than from any external land-records database. - Q: Can it check a whole lease portfolio at once? A: Yes. Tabular review asks the same question of every lease in a matter and returns a grid with the answer, the clause and the page for each, exportable to Excel. - Q: Will it give a title opinion? A: No. It builds the chain, surfaces the defects and shows you the document behind each one. The opinion is yours, and everything it produces is traceable so you can verify it before you sign. - Q: Is client property data kept confidential? A: Documents are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. - Q: What does it cost? A: Every account starts with a 7-day trial of 100 credits. Pro is ₹999 a month with 500 credits, Ultra is ₹3,999 with 2,000, and you pay only the real cost of each run against those credits. ### Tax URL: https://askjustis.com/for/tax Reply to the notice from the provision, not from memory. Tax work turns on the exact text: the section as amended, the circular that changed the position and the ruling that settled it. Justis reads the notice or order with the transaction papers, finds the provision and authority that govern the point, drafts the reply or opinion in your style, and cites every step to its source so the position holds when it is tested. What Justis does for this practice: - The notice, answered point by point from the record: Each allegation in the show cause notice set against what the invoices, returns and ledgers actually show, with the provision that decides it, so the reply argues from the record rather than from a summary of it. - Structuring memos with the provision beside each step: A slump sale against an itemised sale, a merger against a demerger: the agent walks the structure through direct tax, GST and stamp duty, and writes the memo with the section, the circular and the ruling beside each step. - Every transaction document checked for the tax it triggers: Across a data room or a group's intercompany agreements, tabular review asks the tax questions of every document at once and returns a grid: what is triggered, where the exposure sits and the page it rests on. - Your reply, drafted in your style and cited to the source: The reply or the appeal reads the way your chambers writes, with every proposition cited to the section, the circular or the ruling it relies on, and lands as a Word draft you edit rather than retype. Questions: - Q: Does it cover both direct tax and GST? A: Yes. It searches the Income-tax Act, the CGST and IGST Acts and the rules, notifications and circulars under them, alongside Supreme Court, High Court and tribunal decisions. Every conclusion links to the provision or ruling it rests on. - Q: Does it know the section as amended? A: It works from the current text and checks live sources when it answers, and it tells you when a provision has been amended for the period in question. Where the position is unsettled it says so rather than asserting one. - Q: Can it reconcile invoices against returns? A: Upload the invoices, the ledger and the GSTR-2B export and tabular review returns a grid of what matches, what does not and the page or line for each, exportable to Excel for the reply. - Q: Will it draft in our chambers' style? A: Once you train the digital twin on a handful of your own replies and opinions, yes. It learns how you structure a reply, how you cite and how you address the authority, and edits arrive as tracked changes in Word. - Q: Is client financial data kept confidential? A: Documents are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. Data is hosted in India. - Q: What does it cost? A: Every account starts with a 7-day trial of 100 credits. Pro is ₹999 a month with 500 credits, Ultra is ₹3,999 with 2,000, and larger teams are on the Custom plan. ### Intellectual property URL: https://askjustis.com/for/intellectual-property Hold the portfolio and the argument in one place. IP work is deadlines and distinctions: renewal dates, opposition timelines, and whether a mark is really deceptively similar. Justis keeps the portfolio in view, reads the examination reports and notices, and cites the authority for the position you take. What Justis does for this practice: - Marks compared across every class: Upload the filings, opposition notices and registry orders. Justis extracts the marks, the goods and services and the classes, then tabulates where your portfolio and theirs actually overlap. - Prior art compared, claims mapped: Give it the prior art and the claims. Each element is mapped against what the citation actually discloses, and the gaps, the places your invention distinguishes, are marked as gaps. - Your prosecution standards, applied everywhere: Your firm has preferred arguments for a section 11 citation, an obviousness objection, a descriptiveness refusal. Write them down once and every office action is answered from your own prosecution history. - The whole portfolio, with what falls due next: Marks, applications and renewals in one view, each with its class, status and the next date that matters, so a deadline is something you plan for rather than discover. Questions: - Q: Does it search the trade marks register? A: It reads the search reports, examination reports and registry documents you give it, and researches the case law behind each ground. It does not file at or query the registry for you. - Q: Can it draft replies to examination reports? A: Yes, in your own style once the digital twin is trained on your drafts, with each ground answered and the authority cited to the paragraph. - Q: Will it track our renewal dates? A: Upload the portfolio and it returns what falls due when, per mark and class. It is a working view of your own documents, not a docketing system of record. - Q: How do I know the authority is real? A: Every case it cites links to the paragraph of the judgment, and quoted words are verified against the source before they are shown. - Q: Is client IP material safe? A: Documents are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. - Q: What does it cost? A: Every account starts with a 7-day trial of 100 credits. Pro is ₹999 a month with 500 credits and Ultra is ₹3,999 with 2,000. ### Employment URL: https://askjustis.com/for/employment Every contract and policy, checked against the code that applies. Employment work runs on paper that has to agree with itself: the offer letter, the handbook, the policy the code now requires and the file behind a termination. Justis reads them together, checks them against the labour codes and the state rules in force, drafts and redlines in your style, and shows the page behind every conclusion so an exit or an investigation stands on the record. What Justis does for this practice: - Every contract, checked against the code at once: The whole set of employment contracts read in one pass: notice periods, non-competes, bonus clawbacks and termination grounds, each tested against the code and the state rules, with the clause and page behind every flag. - Policies held to what the code requires: The positions you take on handbooks and policies, set once as a playbook: what a POSH policy must contain, how notice pay interacts with standing orders, where a non-compete stops being enforceable. Applied to every policy that comes in for review. - The disciplinary file, in order and complete: Show cause, reply, enquiry notice, findings, order: every step laid out in sequence with the document behind it, so a gap in the process is visible before a tribunal finds it. - Ask the associate, get the answer with the section attached: Whether the exit was lawful, whether the non-compete holds, what a retrenchment costs: asked in plain words and answered from the file and the code, each conclusion cited to the clause or section it rests on. Questions: - Q: Does it know the labour codes and the state rules? A: It searches the codes, the rules notified under them and the state-specific rules and standing orders, alongside Supreme Court, High Court and tribunal decisions. Every conclusion links to the provision or judgment it rests on, and where a state has not notified rules it says so. - Q: Can it review a whole set of contracts at once? A: Yes. Tabular review asks the same questions of every contract in a project and returns a grid with the answer, the clause and the page for each, exportable to Excel. - Q: Will it draft policies in our house style? A: Once you train the digital twin on a handful of your own policies and letters, yes. It learns how you structure a handbook, how you word a notice and what you leave out, and edits arrive as tracked changes in Word. - Q: Can it run an investigation for us? A: No. It organises the file, builds the chronology, drafts the notices and tells you where the process has a gap. Conducting the enquiry and deciding the outcome stay with you and the committee. - Q: Is employee data kept confidential? A: Documents are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. Data is hosted in India. - Q: What does it cost? A: Every account starts with a 7-day trial of 100 credits. Pro is ₹999 a month with 500 credits, Ultra is ₹3,999 with 2,000, and larger teams are on the Custom plan. ### Healthcare URL: https://askjustis.com/for/healthcare Answer the regulator and the claim from the same record. Hospital legal work runs on documents nobody has time to read twice: consent forms, clinical notes, licences, tender conditions and the notices that follow them. Justis reads the file, maps the regulation that applies, and shows you the page each conclusion rests on. What Justis does for this practice: - Spot the gaps before an auditor does: A breach or an inspection generates hundreds of pages before the exposure is clear. Upload the file and Justis builds the timeline, marks the rule each step answers to, and shows where a deadline was missed. - Your compliance standards, applied to every agreement: Write your positions down once as a playbook. Every provider agreement is then read against them, the offending clause is quoted back to you, and the position you take is already drafted. - Ask the associate, get the exposure with the page attached: A notice alleges a sequence. Ask what the record actually shows and the associate reads the case sheet, the consent record and the discharge summary together, then tells you which allegations hold. - Every licence and clearance, checked in one pass: Registrations, waste authorisation, fire and radiation clearances and their renewal dates read across every unit at once, so a lapse is caught before an inspection finds it. Questions: - Q: Can it read handwritten case sheets? A: It runs scanned and handwritten documents through OCR and tells you it is doing so, because handwriting carries transcription risk. Where an entry is genuinely illegible it says so rather than guessing, which matters when the entry is the point in issue. - Q: Is patient data safe to upload? A: Documents are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. You remain responsible for what you choose to upload and for the consents behind it. - Q: Does it know clinical establishment rules? A: It reads the statutes and rules you point it at, and searches the Indian law library of Acts, rules and regulator documents alongside the case law. Where a point is unsettled it says so rather than asserting a position. - Q: Can it track licence renewals across units? A: Upload the registrations and clearances and tabular review returns a grid of what expires when, per unit, with the document behind each row. - Q: Will it decide whether we were negligent? A: No. It shows you what the record supports and what it does not, with the page for each. The judgement is yours, and every conclusion is traceable so you can check it. - Q: How is it priced for a hospital group? A: Pro is ₹999 a month with 500 credits and Ultra is ₹3,999 with 2,000. Groups needing seats across units, shared workspaces with role controls and firm-wide memory are on the Custom plan. ### Banking & finance URL: https://askjustis.com/for/banking-finance Enforce the security on the documents, not on the file note. Banking work lives in the sanction letter, the loan agreement, the security documents, the guarantees and the notices that follow a default. Justis reads the loan file end to end, traces each security from creation to registration, checks every recovery step against SARFAESI, the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act and the IBC, and cites the provision and the ruling behind each one. What Justis does for this practice: - Every security, traced from sanction to perfection: Across the whole loan file, tabular review asks the same questions of every document: what security it creates, whether the charge was registered and filed in time, and what is missing, with the page each answer rests on. - The recovery route, checked step by step: SARFAESI, a recovery application or insolvency: the associate walks the default through each route in order, with the time limit, the notice and the authority for every step, and says which route fits the file. - The borrower's file, answered point by point: Default, limitation and the guarantors, each set against what the account statement, the balance sheet and the guarantee actually say, so the petition argues from the record rather than from the credit note. - Notices drafted in your bank's format, cited to the Act: The demand notice, the possession notice or the reply to a representation reads the way your legal department writes, with each statutory step and time limit checked, and lands as a Word draft you edit rather than retype. Questions: - Q: Does it cover SARFAESI, the RDB Act and the IBC? A: Yes. It searches the statutes, the rules under them and Supreme Court, High Court, DRT and NCLT decisions, and sets out each recovery route with its time limits. Every conclusion links to the provision or ruling it rests on. - Q: Can it check a whole loan file for gaps in the security? A: Upload the file and tabular review asks the same questions of every document at once: what security it creates, whether it was registered and filed in time, and what is missing, with the page for each answer, exportable to Excel. - Q: Does it keep up with RBI directions? A: It checks current RBI directions and circulars through live web search when it answers, cites the version it relied on, and says so when a position has changed or is unsettled rather than asserting one. - Q: Will it draft notices in our bank's format? A: Once you train the digital twin on a handful of your own notices and replies, yes. It learns your structure and wording, checks each statutory step, and edits arrive as tracked changes in Word. - Q: Is borrower data kept confidential? A: Documents are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. Data is hosted in India. - Q: What does it cost? A: Every account starts with a 7-day trial of 100 credits. Pro is ₹999 a month with 500 credits, Ultra is ₹3,999 with 2,000, and larger teams are on the Custom plan. ### Insurance URL: https://askjustis.com/for/insurance Decide the claim on the wording of the policy. Insurance disputes turn on the policy wording, the proposal form and what was disclosed when cover began. Justis reads the policy, the schedule, the endorsements and the claim file together, sets each ground for repudiation against the wording and the Insurance Act, and cites the clause, the provision and the ruling behind every position, whether you act for the insurer or the insured. What Justis does for this practice: - The whole claim file, read clause by clause: The policy, the proposal form, the medical records and the repudiation letter asked the same questions at once, so every fact the claim turns on sits in one grid with the page it comes from. - The repudiation, tested ground by ground: Each ground in the repudiation letter set against the dates, the proposal form and the Insurance Act, so the reply leads with the point that decides the claim instead of arguing every fact. - Motor and general claims, the defences mapped: For a motor accident claim or a property loss, the associate sets out the insurer's defences in order, checks each against the policy and the record, and cites the ruling that governs compensation. - The reply, drafted in your style and cited to the source: The reply to the repudiation, the complaint to the commission or the insurer's defence reads the way your practice writes, with every proposition cited to the clause, the section or the ruling, as a Word draft you edit. Questions: - Q: Do you act for insurers or for policyholders? A: Both. The associate reads the file from whichever side you are on, sets out the grounds and the answers to them, and cites the clause, the provision and the ruling for each. - Q: Does it cover life, health, motor and general insurance? A: Yes. It searches the Insurance Act, the regulations under it and Supreme Court, High Court and consumer commission decisions, and it flags where a rule applies to one line of insurance but not another, such as section 45, which covers life policies. - Q: Does it keep up with IRDAI regulations? A: It checks current IRDAI regulations and circulars through live web search when it answers, cites the version it relied on, and says so when a position has changed rather than asserting one. - Q: Can it review a large portfolio of claims? A: Upload the claim files and tabular review asks the same questions of every one at once, returning a grid of grounds, dates and outcomes with the page for each answer, exportable to Excel. - Q: Is policyholder data kept confidential? A: Documents are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. Data is hosted in India. - Q: What does it cost? A: Every account starts with a 7-day trial of 100 credits. Pro is ₹999 a month with 500 credits, Ultra is ₹3,999 with 2,000, and larger teams are on the Custom plan. ### Law firms URL: https://askjustis.com/for/law-firms Put the firm's best work behind every matter. A firm's quality lives in its precedents, its partners' drafting and what was said in the last client meeting. Justis keeps each matter in its own workspace with its documents, meeting transcripts, research and drafts, lets the whole team work on it together, and gives every associate the same starting point: research cited to the paragraph and drafts in the firm's style. What Justis does for this practice: - Matter management, one workspace per matter: Every matter gets its own workspace: its documents in folders, its chats, reviews and drafts, a matter number, and the matter context the associate reads on every question, visible only to the people working on it. - Client meetings and calls, transcribed into the matter: Record a meeting in the room on a phone, or save the audio of a Google Meet or phone call, and upload it to the matter. Justis transcribes it in English, Hindi and eight other Indian languages, labels speakers where the turn-taking is clear and leaves the wording untouched, and the associate answers from it like any other document in the file. - The whole team on the matter, working in one place: Add colleagues to a matter by email and they work from the same documents, chats and reviews. Comment on a draft and resolve the thread, share a review grid, and accept or reject the associate's tracked changes together, so nobody works from an emailed copy. - Research memos that hold up in front of a partner: The associate plans the search, reads the judgments and writes the memo with every proposition pinned to its paragraph, including the contrary view, so review time goes on the argument rather than on checking citations. - The firm's house style, in every associate's draft: Train the digital twin on the firm's precedents and each partner's drafting, and first drafts arrive in that voice, with changes as tracked changes in Word that the partner accepts or rejects. - Diligence at a scale the team could not staff: Tabular review runs the same questions across hundreds of documents at once and returns a grid with the page behind every answer, so a data room review starts from a finished grid rather than an empty spreadsheet. Questions: - Q: Can each matter be kept separate? A: Yes. Every matter is its own workspace with its own documents, chats, reviews and meeting transcripts, and only the people added to it can see it. - Q: Can we upload meeting recordings? A: Yes, as audio. Record an in-person meeting on a phone or save the audio of a Google Meet or phone call, then upload it to the matter. It is transcribed in English, Hindi and eight other Indian languages, or the language is detected for you, and the associate can answer from it. Video files are not accepted yet, so for a Google Meet recording upload its audio track. - Q: Can the whole team work on a matter together? A: Yes. Add colleagues to a matter by email. They work from the same documents and chats, comment on drafts and resolve the threads, share review grids, and accept or reject tracked changes. - Q: Will it draft in the firm's style? A: Once you train the digital twin on the firm's precedents and each partner's drafting, yes. It learns structure, wording and how you cite, and edits arrive as tracked changes in Word. - Q: Who checks the work? A: Your lawyers do. Every answer cites its source so it can be verified, edits land as tracked changes you accept or reject, and the associate confirms before anything is deleted or merged. - Q: Can we use it for due diligence? A: Upload the data room and tabular review asks the same questions of every document at once, returning a grid with the page for each answer, exportable to Excel. - Q: Is client data kept confidential? A: Documents are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. Data is hosted in India. - Q: What does it cost? A: Every account starts with a 7-day trial of 100 credits. Pro is ₹999 a month with 500 credits, Ultra is ₹3,999 with 2,000, and larger teams are on the Custom plan. ## Use cases by role Each workflow as the problem a lawyer has, what Justis does about it, a worked example of the output (names, figures and dates invented; the provisions real) and a prompt to try. Every workflow has a Try it in Justis button: after sign-in it copies the workflow's sample documents (fictitious files written for the demo, plus official public documents such as Acts, Rules and forms from government sites) into a Justis Demo matter and opens either the Associate with the prompt filled in or a Tabular Review with the workflow's columns. Nothing runs until the user presses send or Run. Each sample can also be previewed and downloaded on the page. ### How litigators use Justis AI URL: https://askjustis.com/use-cases/litigators Most litigation work starts the same way: a paper book lands in the evening, the matter is listed in the morning, and someone has to know the record before the bench asks the first question. The dates are in the annexures, the limitation point is in an order nobody has read, and the authority that decides the issue is one of four hundred results. Justis does that reading with you. You upload the matter once, and it reads every page, scans included, then works through the task the way a careful junior would: it builds the list of dates, computes the period, drafts the reply, finds the binding judgment and quotes the paragraph. Every fact carries the document and page it came from, and anything it could not confirm is marked, not guessed. Try this first: Take a matter you already know well. Upload the paper book to a matter workspace and ask for the list of dates with a source for each entry. Check ten entries against the file. That tells you in fifteen minutes how far to trust it on a matter you do not know. #### Reading in a new brief: the list of dates Problem: A brief arrives the evening before the hearing: a petition, three replies and forty annexures, half of them scanned orders in mixed Hindi and English. Building the list of dates takes a junior two days, and the date that decides the matter is on page 412 of an annexure nobody opened. A chronology typed from memory on the way to court is also where mistakes live. Two documents give different dates for the same service, an interim order is referred to but never placed on record, and nobody notices until the other side does. How Justis handles it: Upload the paper book to a matter. Justis reads every document, runs OCR on the scans and tells you when it is reading one, then builds a dated chronology in which every entry cites the document and page it came from. It marks what does not reconcile: dates two documents give differently, orders referred to but not on file, and gaps in the sequence. It flags anything that raises a limitation question, and hands back the list of dates in Word, ready for the synopsis. Example output: - Documents read: 46 files, 1,284 pages, 9 scanned orders read by OCR - Chronology: 63 dated events, each with the document and page - Does not reconcile: Service of notice: 12 May in the petition, 19 May on the courier receipt (Annexure P-7, p. 212) - Not on record: Interim order of 04.02.2025, referred to in the reply at para 9, not in the paper book - Limitation flag: Appeal filed 97 days after the order; no application for condonation of delay on file - Deliverable: List of dates in Word, in the court's synopsis format Prompt to try (List of dates): Read every document in this matter and build the list of dates for the synopsis. Cite the document and page for each date, mark any date that two documents give differently, list anything referred to but not on record, and flag anything that raises a limitation question. Sample documents (4): Plaint — Kaveri Polymers v. Deccan Agro Packaging (Commercial Suit 318 of 2024); Annexure P-7 — Legal notice of 10 May 2024 with courier receipt; Written Statement — Deccan Agro Packaging in Commercial Suit 318 of 2024; Judgment and decree of 30 August 2026 — Commercial Suit 318 of 2024. #### Limitation and filing deadlines Problem: Limitation is argued at admission, and it is unforgiving. The period depends on the statute: ninety days for a first appeal to the High Court, sixty for a commercial appeal, three months and thirty days under section 34 of the Arbitration Act with nothing after that. Then come the exclusions: the time taken to obtain a certified copy, the day the court was closed, the time spent before the wrong forum. Getting the arithmetic wrong by a day costs the matter, and condonation of delay is increasingly hard to get, especially in commercial matters and for government departments. How Justis handles it: Justis identifies the provision that governs, reads the dates off the documents (the order, the application for the certified copy, the date it was ready) and computes the last date with every exclusion shown line by line, so you can check the working rather than trust a number. It says whether section 5 condonation is available for that proceeding, drafts the delay paragraph or the condonation application when you are already late, and can keep a deadline register for the whole matter list. Example output: - Order: Judgment and decree dated 14.07.2026, District Judge, Pune - Governing period: Article 116, Limitation Act 1963: 90 days for an appeal to the High Court - Plain 90 days: Monday 12 October 2026 - Exclusion, s.12(2): Certified copy applied 16.07.2026, ready 30.07.2026: 14 days excluded - Last date: Monday 26 October 2026 - Condonation: Available under s.5; explain each day of delay if filed after the last date Prompt to try (Compute the last date): From the judgment and the certified-copy application in this matter, compute the last date to file an appeal. Name the article of the Limitation Act, show each exclusion with its date, and tell me whether condonation under section 5 is available if we miss it. Sample documents (1): Certified copy — Judgment of District Judge-4, Pune of 14 July 2026 (Regular Civil Appeal 142 of 2023). #### Replying to a plaint: the written statement Problem: The written statement is due thirty days from service, and in a commercial suit the outer limit of 120 days cannot be extended at all. Every averment must be admitted or specifically denied: a general denial is treated as an admission under Order VIII rule 5. The preliminary objections that win suits early, such as territorial jurisdiction, limitation, valuation, or no pre-institution mediation under section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, are easy to miss when the reply is written against the clock. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the plaint, its documents and your client's instructions, then builds a paragraph-wise table: admit, deny or not within knowledge, with the document that supports each position. It checks the preliminary objections one by one and says which the record supports. It drafts the written statement in your chambers' style, with the verification and the supporting affidavit, and computes both the thirty-day date and the outer limit from the date of service. Example output: - Plaint read: 48 paragraphs, 31 documents - Paragraph-wise reply: Admitted 11, denied 29, not within knowledge 8 - Preliminary objections: No s.12A mediation and no urgent interim relief sought; claim for 2021 invoices time-barred; suit undervalued - Deadlines: Served 07.09.2026: 30 days ends Wed 07.10.2026; commercial outer limit Tue 05.01.2027 - Deliverable: Written statement in Word, 22 pages, with verification and affidavit Prompt to try (Paragraph-wise reply): Read the plaint and its documents and prepare a paragraph-wise reply table: admit, deny or not within knowledge, with the document supporting each. Then list the preliminary objections the record supports, and compute the written statement deadline from service on 7 September 2026. Sample documents (3): Plaint — Kaveri Polymers v. Deccan Agro Packaging (Commercial Suit 211 of 2026); Client instructions — Deccan's comments on the 2026 plaint; Written Statement — Deccan Agro Packaging in Commercial Suit 318 of 2024. #### Finding the authority that actually governs Problem: A search returns four hundred judgments. What you need is the one that binds your bench: the larger bench, the most recent word, not overruled or referred, and the exact paragraph that holds the point. Reading headnotes to find it takes an afternoon. Citing a judgment that has since been overruled, or quoting a paragraph that does not say what the note claims, is the mistake that costs credibility in court. How Justis handles it: Justis searches over 16 million Supreme Court and High Court judgments, reads the candidates and ranks them by what binds: Supreme Court decisions under Article 141, then larger benches, then your High Court. It looks for later treatment of each authority before relying on it. It quotes the operative paragraph with a link to the judgment, and every quotation is checked against the source text before it is shown. If the words cannot be found, the citation is flagged instead of presented as checked. The research memo ends with a table of authorities and their weight. Example output: - Question: Is pre-institution mediation under s.12A, Commercial Courts Act mandatory? - Controlling authority: Patil Automation v. Rakheja Engineers (2022) 10 SCC 1: mandatory, and a suit filed without it is rejected - Later treatment: Yamini Manohar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382: a suit seeking urgent interim relief may be filed without it - Quotes: Each holding quoted from the judgment, linked to the paragraph, checked against the source text - Deliverable: Research memo: question, short answer, discussion, table of authorities with weight Prompt to try (Research memo): Find the controlling Supreme Court authority on whether pre-institution mediation under section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act is mandatory, check how later judgments have treated it, and give me a short research memo with the operative paragraphs quoted and linked. #### Bail and anticipatory bail Problem: Bail work is urgent and the papers are poor: an FIR photographed on a phone, remand orders in Hindi, a chargesheet that may or may not have been filed. The sections have changed since 1 July 2024, and an offence committed before that date is still tried under the old codes. The strongest ground is often arithmetic, such as the day the right to default bail accrued, and it is lost if nobody counts the days. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the FIR, the remand orders and the chargesheet, including scans, and classifies each offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the First Schedule of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita: cognizable or not, bailable or not, the court that tries it. It counts the custody period for default bail under section 187(3) BNSS, grades each ground Strong, Weak or Uncertain with the fact behind it, and drafts the application in Indian form, with the list of dates and the authorities. Example output: - FIR: FIR 214/2026, PS Saket: s.318(4) and s.316(2) BNS - Classification: Cognizable, non-bailable, triable by a Magistrate of the first class - Custody: First remand 10.08.2026; 60-day period (remand day counted) ends 08.10.2026 - Default bail: No chargesheet on file: right under s.187(3) BNSS accrues 09.10.2026; apply that day - Grounds: 6 grounds graded; parity with co-accused granted bail on 21.08.2026 marked Strong - Deliverable: Application with affidavit, list of dates and authorities, in Word Prompt to try (Bail application): Read the FIR, the remand orders and the case diary extracts. Classify each offence under BNS and the BNSS First Schedule, count the custody period for default bail under section 187(3), grade the bail grounds, and draft the application. Sample documents (3): FIR No. 214/2026, PS Saket — Kavita Arora v. Rohit Malhotra and another; Remand orders and co-accused's bail order — FIR 214/2026, PS Saket; Case diary extracts and IO's status report — FIR 214/2026, PS Saket. #### Writ petitions and quashing Problem: Most writ petitions are lost on maintainability, not merits: there is an alternative remedy, the delay is unexplained, or the facts are disputed. The petition has to meet each objection before the bench raises it. The paper book also has a fixed shape (synopsis, list of dates, memo of parties, grounds, prayer, affidavit, index), and assembling it by hand is where filing defects come from. How Justis handles it: Justis grades each maintainability gate for your facts, including the exceptions that let a writ lie despite an alternative remedy: breach of natural justice, an order without jurisdiction, and enforcement of a fundamental right. It builds the grounds, strongest first, each tied to a page of the record. It drafts the petition with the interim application and the affidavit, in the form your High Court expects, and says plainly when two gates look weak so you can decide before drafting. Example output: - Impugned order: RERA authority order of 02.09.2026 dismissing a complaint as time-barred, without a hearing - Alternative remedy: Appeal under s.44 RERA exists; the writ rests on the natural justice exception - Grounds: (A) no hearing; (B) s.31 prescribes no limitation for a complaint; (C) continuing cause of action - Relief: Certiorari quashing the order; mandamus to hear the complaint on merits; interim stay - Deliverable: Petition, interim application, affidavit and index in Word Prompt to try (Writ strategy): The authority dismissed my client's complaint as time-barred on 2 September 2026 without hearing him. Tell me whether a writ under Article 226 is maintainable despite the statutory appeal, build the grounds, and draft the petition with the interim application. #### Preparing a cross-examination Problem: The witness's affidavit in chief says one thing, the documents say another, and the earlier statement says a third. The contradictions that would win the cross are spread across hundreds of pages, and there is one evening to find them. A cross built from memory asks open questions and gives the witness room. The one that works asks closed questions, one fact at a time, with the contradicting document in hand. How Justis handles it: Justis puts each witness in a column and every disputed fact in a row, so a contradiction is something you see, with the page on each side. It builds the cross in chapters: closed, leading questions in sequence, and the prior statement or document to confront the witness with under section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. It also lists the questions not to ask, where the answer could hurt your client. Example output: - Witness: PW-2, the plaintiff's accounts manager - Contradictions found: 7; for example, chief affidavit para 6 says notice served by hand on 12.05, courier receipt shows dispatch on 19.05 - Cross plan: 5 chapters, 38 closed questions, each with the answer the record supports - To confront with: Courier receipt (Ex. P-7), email of 14.05 (Ex. D-3), ledger entry of 14.05 - Do not ask: Why the payment was delayed: opens the door to the settlement talks Prompt to try (Cross-examination plan): Compare PW-2's affidavit in chief with the documents on record and her earlier statement. List every contradiction with the page on each side, then build a cross-examination plan in chapters of closed questions, with the document to confront her with for each. Sample documents (4): Affidavit in chief of PW-2 Neha Kulkarni (Kaveri's Accounts Manager); PW-2's earlier affidavit supporting the injunction application (Exhibit 5); Annexure P-7 — Legal notice of 10 May 2024 with courier receipt; Trial exhibits — rejection email (Ex. D-1), credit-note email (Ex. D-3) and ledger extract (Ex. P-4). #### Written submissions and hearing notes Problem: Benches increasingly ask for short written submissions, and a record of four hundred pages and twenty authorities has to become a few tight pages the night before. Every proposition needs its authority and its page of the record, and every quotation has to be exact. The note of arguments you speak from is a different document again, and it is usually written last and fastest. How Justis handles it: Justis turns the issues into propositions, each with the authority that supports it and the record page it rests on, and drafts the submissions around them. It answers the other side's best point instead of ignoring it. It prepares a one-page note of arguments and a table of authorities, checks every quotation against the judgment it came from, and keeps the draft in your chambers' style. Example output: - Issues: 4 issues framed from the pleadings and the order under appeal - Propositions: 9, each with one authority and one record page - Authorities: 14 cited; every quotation checked against the source text - Answer to the other side: Their reliance on a larger-bench ruling distinguished on facts, with the paragraph - Deliverables: Written submissions, one-page note of arguments, table of authorities Prompt to try (Written submissions): Prepare written submissions on the four issues in this appeal. Give each proposition one authority with the paragraph and one page of the record, answer the respondent's main argument, keep it short, and add a one-page note of arguments. Sample documents (4): Judgment and decree of 30 August 2026 — Commercial Suit 318 of 2024; Respondent's reply to the stay application — Commercial Appeal 96 of 2026; Trial exhibits — rejection email (Ex. D-1), credit-note email (Ex. D-3) and ledger extract (Ex. P-4); Annexure P-7 — Legal notice of 10 May 2024 with courier receipt. #### When the judgment arrives: appeal, stay or execute Problem: The order arrives and the clock starts. The client wants to know, that day, whether to appeal, how long they have, whether the decree can be stayed, and at what cost. If you won, the question is how quickly the decree can be executed. The grounds of appeal have to come from the judgment itself: the finding, the evidence it ignored and the law it misapplied, paragraph by paragraph. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the judgment against the record, maps each finding to the evidence it rests on, and identifies the errors that make good grounds. It names the forum and the period, computes the last date, and sets out what a stay will usually cost, such as a deposit or security. If the decree is in your favour, it drafts the execution plan instead: the court, the mode of execution and the assets to proceed against. Example output: - Order: Commercial court decree of 30.08.2026 for ₹1.84 crore with interest - Forum and period: Appeal under s.13(1A), Commercial Courts Act, 60 days: last date Thu 29.10.2026, before any copy exclusion - Grounds: 6 grounds, each tied to a paragraph of the judgment and the evidence it overlooked - Stay: Likely conditional on deposit or security; draft application ready - Deliverable: Appeal strategy note and draft grounds of appeal Prompt to try (Appeal strategy): Read this judgment against the record. Identify the findings we can challenge and the evidence each overlooked, name the appellate forum and the last date to file, and draft the grounds of appeal and a stay application. Sample documents (4): Judgment and decree of 30 August 2026 — Commercial Suit 318 of 2024; Trial exhibits — rejection email (Ex. D-1), credit-note email (Ex. D-3) and ledger extract (Ex. P-4); Annexure P-7 — Legal notice of 10 May 2024 with courier receipt; Written Statement — Deccan Agro Packaging in Commercial Suit 318 of 2024. #### Reading the police file into a defence note Problem: The charge-sheet copies arrive under section 230 BNSS a few weeks before the hearing on charge: the FIR, extracts of the case diary, statements recorded under section 180, a recovery panchanama and an arrest memo, half of it in Marathi or Hindi. The points that get an accused discharged or bailed are in the gaps between these papers, and nobody has read them side by side. A recovery made before the arrest it supposedly followed, an IMEI that does not match, an identification made at the police station with no parade: each is visible only when two documents are open at once. How Justis handles it: Upload the police file. Justis reads every paper, scans and regional-language pages included, and builds the prosecution's case as the record actually states it: who says what, when it was recorded, and what was recovered from whom. It then lists every inconsistency with the page on each side, checks the procedure the BNSS and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam require (audio-video recording of a search and seizure under section 105 BNSS, the discovery proviso under section 23 BSA), and drafts a defence note: the points for discharge, the points for bail, and the chapters of cross-examination they support. Example output: - Record read: FIR 88/2026, PS Kothrud (complaint in Marathi), 15 case diary entries, 4 statements under s.180 BNSS, recovery panchanama and arrest memo - Recovery before arrest: Panchanama: recovery at 19:10 on 20.06.2026; arrest memo: arrested at 21:30 the same evening; HC Jagtap: caught at 18:30, recovery at 20:00 - Wrong handset: FIR gives IMEI 356781234564417 from the purchase bill; the panchanama records 356781234564471 - Identification: FIR: both wore helmets, faces not seen; accused shown to the complainant at the police station on 20.06 (CD 8); no identification parade (CD 13) - Procedure: No audio-video recording of the search and seizure, required by s.105 BNSS; reason given: IO's phone battery discharged - Deliverable: Defence note in Word: discharge points, bail points, cross-examination chapters, each tied to a page Prompt to try (Defence note): Read the FIR, the case diary extracts, the four statements under section 180 BNSS and the recovery panchanama and arrest memo. List every inconsistency between them with the document and page on each side, check the search, seizure and identification against the BNSS and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and draft a defence note for the hearing on charge with the points for discharge and bail. Sample documents (7): FIR No. 88/2026, PS Kothrud — Omkar Bapat v. two unknown persons (robbery); Case diary extracts — FIR 88/2026, PS Kothrud (supplied with the charge-sheet); Recovery panchanama and arrest memo — FIR 88/2026, PS Kothrud; Supplementary statement of the complainant Omkar Bapat (s.180 BNSS), 20 June 2026; Statement of Ramesh Kale, tea stall owner (s.180 BNSS), 15 June 2026; Statement of Dattatray Gore, autorickshaw driver (s.180 BNSS), 17 June 2026; Statement of HC Sunil Jagtap, recovery witness (s.180 BNSS), 21 June 2026. #### Comparing witness statements, one row per witness Problem: Four witnesses describe the same two minutes, and each statement was recorded on a different day by the same officer. One says two men on a black motorcycle, another three on a red one; one saw a knife, another saw none. These are the contradictions a cross-examination is built on, and they are lost when the statements are read one after another. Comparing them by hand means a spreadsheet typed from the photocopies, and it is rarely done for every witness. How Justis handles it: Tabular review puts each statement in a row and asks the same questions of all of them: when it was recorded, the time of the incident, the number of assailants and the vehicle, the weapon, how the witness says they identified the accused, and what the statement adds that the FIR did not say. Every cell carries the page it came from. Reading down a column shows the contradiction; clicking a cell opens the statement at the line. Export the grid to Excel, or ask the Associate to turn it into cross-examination chapters under section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. Example output: - Rows: 4 statements under s.180 BNSS, one per witness - Time of incident: About 21:15 (Bapat, Gore) against about 20:30 (Kale, who says he closes at 8:30 on Sundays) - Assailants: Two on a black motorcycle (Bapat, Gore) against three on a red motorcycle, triple seat (Kale) - Weapon: Knife (Bapat, Gore); Kale saw no weapon - New in the statement: Gore, recorded three days later, gives the number MH12 KX 7206, which is not in the FIR; Bapat now says the visor was up - Recovery: Jagtap: recovered at about 20:00 from a steel cupboard; the panchanama says 19:10, under the mattress Prompt to try (Witness comparison): For each witness statement in this matter, give the date it was recorded and the gap from the incident, the time of the incident, the assailants and the vehicle, the weapon, how the witness identifies the accused, any arrest or recovery details, and anything the FIR does not say. Cite the page for each answer. Opens in: Tabular Review, one column per question (Witness, Role, Date recorded, Days after incident, Time of incident, Assailants, Vehicle, Weapon, Identification of the accused, Arrest and recovery, Facts not in the FIR). Sample documents (4): Supplementary statement of the complainant Omkar Bapat (s.180 BNSS), 20 June 2026; Statement of Ramesh Kale, tea stall owner (s.180 BNSS), 15 June 2026; Statement of Dattatray Gore, autorickshaw driver (s.180 BNSS), 17 June 2026; Statement of HC Sunil Jagtap, recovery witness (s.180 BNSS), 21 June 2026. #### Argument strategy for a hearing Problem: An application is listed for hearing in ten days. The other side's reply raises four arguments and cites three judgments, the bench's last order names two points it wants addressed, and the junior's note answers only your own case. The weak points in your application are the ones the bench will go to first. Preparing properly means setting both sides out together: each argument, the authority it rests on, whether that authority actually says it, and what the bench is likely to ask. How Justis handles it: Justis reads your application, the reply and the order sheet against the pleadings, and lays out the arguments on both sides with the authority each relies on, read from the judgment rather than the headnote. It grades each argument Strong, Weak or Uncertain, with the reason. It marks the opponent's misreadings of authority and your own exposed flanks, lists the questions the bench is likely to ask with a short answer and the page to turn to, and drafts a note of arguments in the order you will speak. Example output: - Hearing: Exh. 12, Order VII Rule 11 application in Commercial Suit 211 of 2026, listed 12.10.2026 - Our strongest point: Plaint para 36: no s.12A mediation; para 48: no interim relief sought. Patil Automation (2022) 10 SCC 1 applies; the urgent-relief exception does not - Their misreading: Reply para 2 says Patil Automation covers only claims arising after 20.08.2022; the cut-off concerns suits instituted after that date, and this suit was filed on 18.08.2026 - Their weak point: Reply para 4 relies on Yamini Manohar, but the plaint seeks no urgent relief and only 'contemplates' attachment at a later stage - Our exposed flank: Limitation as a mixed question; answer from the plaint's own dates: period expired 28.02.2025, before the 15.04.2025 confirmation, so s.18 cannot apply - Bench's questions: Order of 29.09.2026: does the 2024 non-starter report cover this suit; can limitation be decided now. Also: the application does not extend the written statement deadline of 07.10.2026 Prompt to try (Hearing strategy): Prepare for the hearing on our Order VII Rule 11 application on 12 October. Set out both sides' arguments from the application, the plaintiff's reply and the plaint, with the authority each relies on and whether it supports the point. Grade each argument, mark our weak points and theirs, answer the two questions in the order of 29 September, list other questions the bench may ask, and draft a note of arguments. Sample documents (4): Deccan's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (Exh. 12) — Commercial Suit 211 of 2026; Kaveri's reply to the Order VII Rule 11 application (Exh. 12) — Commercial Suit 211 of 2026; Roznama (order sheet) — Commercial Suit 211 of 2026, District Judge-9 and Commercial Court, Pune; Plaint — Kaveri Polymers v. Deccan Agro Packaging (Commercial Suit 211 of 2026). #### Filling the court's forms from the client's data Problem: Every filing carries forms around the pleading: the list of documents under Order XI with its custody columns, the statement of truth, the vakalatnama, the process form. A clerk types them from an email the night before, and the defects come from there: the wrong court in the title, a signatory the board resolution does not authorise, an email filed without its certificate. Registry objections cost a day; a statement of truth signed by the wrong person costs more. How Justis handles it: Upload the blank forms your chambers uses and the client's data. Justis fills each form as a new Word document, field by field, from the data sheet, the board resolution and the pleadings already on file, and leaves a field blank with a note where the data is missing rather than guessing. It checks the entries against the record as it fills: the court and suit number against the summons, the signatory against the resolution, each electronic record for its certificate under section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. It does not file anything; the forms come back for you to check and sign. Example output: - Forms filled: Defendant's list of documents under Order XI Rule 1(7) and the statement of truth, from the client data sheet - Court: Data sheet says Civil Judge Senior Division; the summons and plaint say District Judge-9 and Commercial Court, Pune - Signatory: Data sheet proposes the MD; the board resolution of 18.09.2026 authorises only Ms. Smita Bhosale, CFO - Custody: D-11 reconciliation: our original misplaced, entered as a copy, with Kaveri's original listed in Part C - Electronic records: D-13, D-15 and D-16 are emails; no certificate under s.63 BSA prepared - Left blank: Associate's enrolment number (awaited); written statement due 07.10.2026 Prompt to try (Fill the forms): Fill the blank list of documents and the blank statement of truth for our written statement in Commercial Suit 211 of 2026, using the client data sheet, the plaint and the board resolution. Produce each completed form as a Word document, leave missing fields blank with a note, and list every point where the data sheet conflicts with the record. Sample documents (4): Blank form — Defendant's list of documents under Order XI Rule 1(7) CPC (commercial suits); Blank form — Statement of truth for a written statement (Order VI Rule 15A and Order XI Rule 3 CPC); Client data sheet for filing — Deccan's written statement in Commercial Suit 211 of 2026; Plaint — Kaveri Polymers v. Deccan Agro Packaging (Commercial Suit 211 of 2026). #### A cheque-bounce notice under section 138 Problem: A dishonoured cheque gives the payee a short, unforgiving route: a written demand within thirty days of hearing from the bank, fifteen days for the drawer to pay, and a complaint within a month after that. A notice that names the wrong drawer, demands the wrong figure or misses a director is the first thing the defence attacks. Clients send what they have: a trading name, an old address, a ledger balance and a request to add interest and charges to the demand. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the return memo, the cheque and the client's ledger, takes the drawer's name and the signatory from the bank's papers rather than the client's records, and computes the dates under section 138: the last day for the notice and when the cause of action for a complaint will arise. It drafts the notice with the cheque amount demanded as its own head, any other sum kept separate, and the company and the directors responsible for its business as addressees, and it lists the points the complaint will need to meet, such as a cheque handed over post-dated. Example output: - Cheque: No. 004512 for ₹7,45,000 dated 30.07.2026, returned 'Funds Insufficient' on 22.09.2026 - Last date for notice: Bank's intimation received 24.09.2026: notice by Saturday 24.10.2026 - Drawer: Client says 'Sahyadri Agro Traders'; the return memo and cheque say Sahyadri Agrotech Private Limited, signed by Mahesh Kadam, Director - Amount: Notice demands the cheque amount of ₹7,45,000; ledger balance of ₹7,54,000, interest and charges set out separately - Addressees: The company at its Baner office and the old Market Yard address, and both directors, with the role of Mrs. Swati Kadam to be confirmed - Point to watch: Cheque handed over post-dated in May; after the ₹11,000 credit note the May-June bills total ₹7,34,000, but the balance due on presentation was ₹7,54,000 Prompt to try (Section 138 notice): Draft a demand notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for this dishonoured cheque. Take the drawer's name and signatory from the bank's papers, compute the last date for the notice and when a complaint can be filed, demand the cheque amount separately from any other sum, address the company and the directors responsible, and list the risks the complaint will need to meet. Sample documents (2): Cheque return memo and bank's intimation — cheque No. 004512 of Sahyadri Agrotech Private Limited; Client instructions — Shivneri Packaging's cheque-bounce notice against Sahyadri. #### Reviewing the other side's consent terms Problem: The deal is agreed in a meeting and the other side's counsel sends the consent terms the next evening. The figure is right; the rest is not quite what was agreed: an admission of liability, a first instalment a month early, a default clause that revives the whole decree, costs nobody mentioned. Consent terms recorded by a court are executed as they are written. The mark-up has to catch every departure from the client's instructions before it is signed. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the draft against the client's instructions and the decree, and marks every departure as a tracked change in the Word file, with a comment giving the reason and the instruction it comes from. It checks the arithmetic of the instalments and the dates. It also flags what the draft leaves out, such as recording satisfaction of the decree or the step needed to withdraw a suit pending in another court, and sends back a short note on the points that need the client's decision. Example output: - Draft reviewed: Consent terms in Commercial Appeal 96 of 2026 covering the decree and Commercial Suit 211 of 2026 - Admission: Cl. 1 'admits its liability' replaced with settlement without admission, per the client's instruction 3 - Instalments: Three from 15.10.2026 changed to four from 15.11.2026 to 15.02.2027; still totalling ₹1,55,00,000 - Default: Cl. 5 revives the full ₹1.84 crore decree without notice; changed to a 15-day cure and recovery of the unpaid balance only - Other changes: ₹5 lakh costs deleted; confidentiality made mutual; 2026 suit withdrawn without liberty; guarantee returned after the second instalment - Missing: No recording of satisfaction of the decree; no step to withdraw the 2026 suit in the Commercial Court; appeal (L) 1422 of 2025 left out Prompt to try (Mark up consent terms): Review the other side's draft consent terms against our client's settlement instructions and the decree. Mark every departure as a tracked change with a comment giving the reason and the instruction, check the instalment arithmetic and dates, and list anything the draft leaves out that the settlement needs. Sample documents (3): Draft consent terms from Kaveri's advocates — Commercial Appeal 96 of 2026 and Commercial Suit 211 of 2026; Client's settlement instructions — Deccan's terms for the Kaveri settlement; Judgment and decree of 30 August 2026 — Commercial Suit 318 of 2024. Questions: - Q: Does it know the new criminal codes? A: Yes. It works under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, in force from 1 July 2024, and cites the old IPC, CrPC or Evidence Act section beside the new one where a precedent uses it. For an offence committed before 1 July 2024 it keeps to the old code. - Q: Can it read scanned orders and documents in Hindi? A: Yes. Scanned PDFs and photographs are read with OCR, including Hindi and mixed Hindi-English papers, and the associate tells you when it is reading a scan so you know transcription errors are possible. Where a page is illegible it says so instead of guessing. - Q: How do I know a citation is real? A: Every authority links to the paragraph of the judgment it came from, and quoted words are checked against the source text before they are shown. If the words cannot be found, the citation is flagged rather than presented as checked. - Q: Will it file on e-Courts or send anything for me? A: No. Justis prepares the work: the chronology, the computation, the draft and the research. Filing, signing and anything sent to the court or the other side stays with you. - Q: Is client material safe to upload? A: Documents and chats are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. - Q: What should a litigator try first? A: The list of dates on a matter you already know. Upload the paper book, ask for the chronology with a source for each entry, and check it against your own notes. It is the fastest way to see where it helps and where you still want to look yourself. ### How corporate lawyers use Justis AI URL: https://askjustis.com/use-cases/corporate Corporate work is a paper trail that has to agree with itself. The board approves, the members resolve, the form is filed, the register is written up, and the agreement that depended on all of it is signed. When one link is missing, nobody finds out until a diligence team, an auditor or the registrar does, usually years later and at the worst moment. Justis reads that trail with you. You upload the minute books, the filings, the registers and the company's agreements to one project, and it reads every page, scans included, then checks each step against what the Companies Act and the rules under it require. Every conclusion carries the document and page it came from, and anything it could not confirm is marked, not assumed. Try this first: Take a company whose records you already know. Upload three years of board and general meeting minutes with the filings for the same period, and ask for the corporate record in date order with every missing or late filing marked. Check ten entries against your own compliance tracker. That tells you in fifteen minutes how far to trust it on a company you have just taken over. #### Rebuilding the corporate record Problem: A new client arrives with a decade of minute books, some scanned, some typed, some in a box. Before anyone can advise on the next transaction, someone has to know what the company actually approved, what it filed, and whether the registers agree with both. Doing that by hand takes a secretarial team a fortnight. The gaps are always the same: a special resolution passed but MGT-14 never filed, an allotment made without the return of allotment, a charge satisfied on the lender's books but still open on the register, a director who resigned on paper but was never removed from the record. How Justis handles it: Upload the minute books, the registers and the filed forms to a project. Justis reads every document, runs OCR on the scans, and lays out each corporate action in date order with the resolution, the form and the register entry that should follow it, each cited to its page. It marks what does not line up: a resolution with no filing, a filing with no resolution behind it, a register that disagrees with the minutes, and the statutory period each gap breached. The result comes back as a table you can export to Excel for the compliance file. Example output: - Documents read: 212 files, 3,480 pages, 64 scanned minute pages read by OCR - Corporate record: 141 actions from 2016 to 2026, each with its resolution, filing and register entry - Filing gap: ESOP special resolution passed 16.05.2026; MGT-14 due within 30 days (s.117), by 15.06.2026; not on file - Register mismatch: Transfer of 12,000 shares approved at the board meeting of 03.02.2024, not entered in the register of members - Board meeting gap: 128 days between the meetings of 10.01.2026 and 18.05.2026; s.173(1) allows 120 - Deliverable: Corporate record and gap list in Excel, with a Word note on how to regularise each gap Prompt to try (Corporate record): Read the minute books, registers and filed forms in this matter and build the corporate record in date order. For each action give the resolution, the form that should have been filed and the register entry, cite the page for each, and mark every filing that is missing or late with the period it breached. Sample documents (3): Aranya Flexipack Limited — Certified extracts of board minutes, 2024 to 2026; Aranya Flexipack Limited — Minutes of the extraordinary general meetings of 16 May and 5 July 2026; Aranya Flexipack Limited — Statutory registers and MCA filings tracker (working file). #### Board and general meeting papers Problem: A board meeting is a sequence of small requirements that are easy to get wrong under time pressure: notice at least seven days ahead under section 173(3), a quorum under section 174, interested directors disclosed and kept out of the discussion under section 184, and an agenda that separates what the board can decide from what needs the members. General meetings add their own: twenty-one clear days' notice under section 101, an explanatory statement under section 102 for special business, the right kind of resolution for each item, and the filings that follow within thirty days. A notice that misses one of these is what a dissenting shareholder challenges. How Justis handles it: Give Justis the matters the company wants approved and its articles. It sorts each item into board or members, says whether it needs an ordinary or special resolution and cites the section, and drafts the notice, the agenda, the explanatory statement and the resolutions in your format. After the meeting, it drafts the minutes from your notes or a recording of the meeting, in English or Hindi, and lists every filing and register entry the meeting triggered, with the last date for each. Example output: - Items: Borrowing above the s.180(1)(c) limit, ESOP pool, change of registered office within the city, appointment of an additional director - Board or members: Borrowing and ESOP go to the members as special resolutions; the office change and additional director are for the board - Articles check: Article 58 requires a quorum of three for any meeting at which borrowing is considered - Notice: EGM notice with the s.102 explanatory statement for each special item; 21 clear days before the meeting - Filings triggered: MGT-14 for both special resolutions and DIR-12 for the new director, each within 30 days - Deliverable: Board notice, agenda, draft resolutions and EGM notice in Word Prompt to try (Meeting papers): The company wants to approve the items in the attached note. Read the articles, tell me which items the board can approve and which need the members and by what resolution, cite the section for each, and draft the board notice, agenda, resolutions and the general meeting notice with the explanatory statement. Sample documents (2): Aranya Flexipack Limited — Note on items for the October 2026 meetings, with extract of the Articles; Aranya Flexipack Limited — Certified extracts of board minutes, 2024 to 2026. #### Share allotments and private placements Problem: A fundraise closes on a timetable set by the investor, and the company law steps run alongside it: the special resolution for the private placement under section 42, the valuation report from a registered valuer, the offer letter, the money received from the subscriber's own bank account, the allotment within sixty days of receipt, and the return of allotment within fifteen days of it. When the investor is non-resident, FEMA adds its own layer: the pricing guidelines under the NDI Rules, the sectoral cap and route, and the FC-GPR within thirty days of the issue. Miss the sixty-day window and the money has to be refunded, with interest if the refund is late. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the term sheet, the resolutions, the valuation report and the bank records, and builds the allotment timeline with the last date for every step, computed from the dates on the documents rather than from the deal calendar. It checks the issue price against the valuation and the FEMA pricing rule, drafts the resolutions and the offer letter, and marks anything that is out of order, such as money received before the special resolution was passed. Example output: - Issue: Series A CCPS to a Singapore fund, ₹48 crore, allotted 20.08.2026 - Application money: Received 10.07.2026; allotment due within 60 days (s.42(6)), by 08.09.2026: met - Return of allotment: PAS-3 within 15 days of allotment, by 04.09.2026 - FEMA reporting: FC-GPR within 30 days of the issue, by 19.09.2026 - Pricing: Issue price ₹1,240 per share against a fair value of ₹1,185 in the valuer's report: not below fair value - Out of order: Offer letter dated 02.07.2026, before the special resolution of 05.07.2026 Prompt to try (Allotment timeline): Read the term sheet, the resolutions, the valuation report and the bank statement for this round. Build the allotment timeline under section 42 and the FEMA reporting steps, compute the last date for each from the documents, check the price against the valuation, and mark anything done out of order. Sample documents (5): Series A Term Sheet — Tamarind Straits Growth Fund I and Aranya Flexipack Limited (28 May 2026); Aranya Flexipack Limited — Minutes of the extraordinary general meetings of 16 May and 5 July 2026; Valuation Report — Fair value of equity shares of Aranya Flexipack Limited (1 July 2026); Bank statement and FIRC — Aranya Flexipack Limited Series A share application account (July to August 2026); Aranya Flexipack Limited — Certified extracts of board minutes, 2024 to 2026. #### Related party transactions Problem: The promoter's other company supplies raw material, leases the warehouse and provides the managing director's car. Each arrangement needs to be tested under section 188: is it in the ordinary course and at arm's length, and if not, does it cross the thresholds in the rules that send it to the members, where the related parties cannot vote. For a listed company the Regulation 23 LODR regime runs on top: prior audit committee approval, the materiality test and the disclosures that follow. Getting the test wrong is found out in the board's report, by the auditor, or by a minority shareholder. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the contracts with related parties alongside the financial statements and the register of contracts, identifies each related party under section 2(76), and tests every arrangement for ordinary course, arm's length and the approval thresholds, citing the provision and the figure it used. It lists which approvals were taken and which are missing, drafts the board and member resolutions, and prepares the particulars for Form AOC-2 in the board's report. Example output: - Related parties: 4 identified from the MBP-1 disclosures and the shareholding pattern - Arrangements: 7 contracts; purchase of goods from Sagar Polymers at ₹38 crore a year - Threshold: Turnover ₹310 crore: the purchase is above 10% and needs members' approval unless ordinary course and arm's length - Arm's length: Price 6% above two third-party quotes on file: arm's length not supported by the record - Approvals: Board approval on record; members' resolution not taken - Deliverable: RPT register, note on each arrangement, draft resolutions and AOC-2 particulars Prompt to try (RPT review): Identify every related party of the company from the disclosures and shareholding in this matter. For each contract with them, test ordinary course, arm's length and the section 188 thresholds, say which approvals were taken and which are missing, and draft the resolutions and the AOC-2 particulars. Sample documents (4): Aranya Flexipack Limited — Directors' MBP-1 disclosures FY 2026-27 and shareholding pattern; Aranya Flexipack Limited — Statutory registers and MCA filings tracker (working file); Resin Supply Agreement — Sagar Polymers Private Limited and Aranya Flexipack Limited (15 January 2026); Aranya Flexipack Limited — Certified extracts of board minutes, 2024 to 2026. #### Asking one question of every agreement Problem: The company is raising money, restructuring or being sold, and someone needs to know which of its four hundred agreements need a counterparty's consent, which terminate on a change in shareholding, and which forbid assignment to a group company. The answer lives in clauses written by different lawyers over fifteen years. Sampling the agreements and hoping the rest look the same is how a key customer's consent right is found after signing. How Justis handles it: Upload the contract base to a matter workspace and ask your questions once. Tabular review reads every agreement and returns a grid with one row per agreement and one column per question, each cell citing the clause and page it came from. Filter the grid to what needs action, export it to Excel for the board pack, and ask Justis to draft the consent request letters for the agreements that need one. Example output: - Agreements read: 412, including 38 scanned - Questions: Change of control, assignment, termination for convenience, exclusivity, governing law - Consent needed: 27 agreements require consent to a change of control; 9 of them are with the top ten customers - Termination right: 6 agreements let the counterparty terminate on a change of control, with 30 days' notice - Not readable: 2 scanned pages illegible; marked for manual review, not guessed - Deliverable: Excel grid with the clause cited in every cell, and draft consent letters in Word Prompt to try (Contract base review): Review every agreement in this matter for change of control, assignment, termination for convenience, exclusivity and governing law. Give me a grid with the clause and page in each cell, list the agreements that need consent to a change in shareholding, and draft the consent request letters. Opens in: Tabular Review, one column per question (Counterparty and document, Change of control, Assignment, Termination for convenience, Convenience notice (days), Exclusivity or minimum commitment, Expiry date, Contract currency, Governing law and disputes). Sample documents (3): Master Supply Agreement — Pravah Foods Limited and Aranya Flexipack Limited (1 April 2024); Resin Supply Agreement — Sagar Polymers Private Limited and Aranya Flexipack Limited (15 January 2026); Distribution Agreement — Samarth Distribution Private Limited draft (distributor's form, v1). #### Commercial agreements against the company's positions Problem: Most of a corporate practice's volume is the company's own paper: supply agreements, distribution, services, leases and NDAs. Each one comes in on the counterparty's form, and each one has to be read against the same positions on liability, indemnity, termination and governing law. Reading them one at a time, from memory of what the company usually accepts, means the positions drift and the same clause is argued twice. How Justis handles it: Write the company's positions down once as a playbook, with the preferred term and the fallback for each. Justis reads every incoming agreement against it, quotes the clause that departs, and says which position applies. It then marks up the counterparty's own Word file as tracked changes, with the reason for each change in a comment, so the markup goes back in a form the other side recognises. Example output: - Agreement: Distribution agreement on the distributor's form, 34 pages - Off position: 5 clauses: liability cap, exclusivity, termination, stock buy-back, governing law - Liability: Cap at one month's margin against a standing position of twelve months' fees - Exclusivity: Exclusive for all of India with no minimum purchase commitment - Governing law: Arbitration seated in Singapore; the playbook requires a seat in India - Deliverable: Tracked-change markup on the distributor's .docx, one comment per change Prompt to try (Playbook review): Review this distribution agreement against the commercial contracts playbook. List every clause that departs from our position with the clause quoted, apply the preferred position or the fallback, and mark up the document as tracked changes with the reason for each change in a comment. Sample documents (2): Distribution Agreement — Samarth Distribution Private Limited draft (distributor's form, v1); Aranya Flexipack Limited — Commercial contracts playbook (distribution and supply), v3. #### Listed company disclosures and insider trading Problem: For a listed company the board meeting is also a disclosure event. Under Regulation 30 of the LODR, the outcome of the meeting goes to the exchanges within thirty minutes of its close, other events arising within the company within twelve hours, and events from outside it within twenty-four. Deciding what is material, under the policy and the tests in the regulation, has to happen before the meeting ends. The PIT Regulations run alongside: the trading window closed from the end of the quarter until forty-eight hours after the results are published, the structured digital database of everyone who received unpublished price sensitive information, and pre-clearance for designated persons. How Justis handles it: Give Justis the board agenda, the draft outcome and the company's materiality policy. It says which items are disclosable under Regulation 30 and by when, drafts the disclosure in the form the exchanges expect, and marks items where materiality is a judgment for you. It checks the trading window dates against the results calendar, reads the pre-clearance requests against the window and the code of conduct, and drafts the entries for the structured digital database. Example output: - Agenda: Q2 results, acquisition of a 60% stake in a logistics company, resignation of the CFO - Disclosable: All three under Regulation 30; results and acquisition within 30 minutes of the meeting closing - Materiality: Acquiring control is listed in Para A of Schedule III: disclosable without applying the materiality test - Trading window: Closed from the end of the quarter, 30.09.2026, until 48 hours after the results are published - Pre-clearance: 2 requests from designated persons fall inside the closed window: to be refused - Deliverable: Draft outcome and Regulation 30 disclosures, SDD entries, note on each pre-clearance request Prompt to try (Disclosure check): Read this board agenda, the draft outcome and our materiality policy. Tell me which items are disclosable under Regulation 30 of the LODR and by when, draft each disclosure, check the trading window against the results date, and review the pending pre-clearance requests. Sample documents (4): Vindhya Consumer Brands Limited — Notice and agenda of the board meeting of 6 November 2026; Vindhya Consumer Brands Limited — Draft outcome of the board meeting of 6 November 2026, with the company secretary's covering note; Vindhya Consumer Brands Limited — Policy for Determination of Materiality of Events and Information; Vindhya Consumer Brands Limited — Trading window intimation and pending pre-clearance requests (Q2 FY 2026-27). #### Filling MCA form particulars from the record Problem: Every appointment, resignation, special resolution and transfer ends in a form: DIR-12 within thirty days of a director's appointment under section 170(2), MGT-14 for the resolutions, SH-4 for a transfer. The particulars come from four places at once, the board minutes, the director's own data sheet, the consent in DIR-2 and the declaration in DIR-8, and the team keys them in from whichever one is open. That is how a DIN is entered with two digits transposed, a consent is filed that was signed after the appointment it consents to, and a director appointed as non-independent is shown as independent because that is the box she ticked on her data sheet. How Justis handles it: Give Justis the firm's blank Word template of the form's fields and the documents on file. It fills each field from the record, names the document behind every entry, and where two documents disagree it leaves the field open with a comment saying which says what. It also lists the attachments the form needs and whether each is on file, and computes the last date for filing from the date of the event in the minutes, not from the date the papers reached the secretarial team. Example output: - Form: DIR-12 for Dr. Kavya Iyer, appointed Additional Director on 16.10.2026; due within 30 days, by 15.11.2026 - Filled: Every field in Parts A to E from the data sheet, the DIR-8 and the minutes, each with its source - DIN mismatch: Data sheet, DIR-8 and the board note give 09318826; the DIR-2 consent gives 09318862. Field left open with a comment - Consent date: DIR-2 signed and received 19.10.2026, three days after the appointment; Rule 8 requires it on or before the appointment - Category: Data sheet ticks Independent; the board resolution appoints her non-executive, non-independent. Filled as non-independent, comment added - Attachments: Form MBP-1 not yet received; the other attachments are on file Prompt to try (Fill DIR-12 particulars): Fill the attached DIR-12 particulars template for Dr. Kavya Iyer's appointment from the data sheet, DIR-2, DIR-8, the board note and the draft minutes. Give the source for every field, leave a field blank with a comment wherever two documents disagree, list the attachments with which are missing, and give the last date for filing. Sample documents (4): Aranya Flexipack Limited — Blank working template for the particulars of Form DIR-12 (appointment of a director); Aranya Flexipack Limited — Appointment papers of Dr. Kavya Iyer (director data sheet, Form DIR-2 consent, Form DIR-8 declaration); Aranya Flexipack Limited — Draft minutes of the board meeting of 16 October 2026 (for review before circulation); Aranya Flexipack Limited — Note on items for the October 2026 meetings, with extract of the Articles. #### Drafting a shareholders' agreement from the term sheet Problem: The term sheet is signed and the investor's counsel wants the first draft of the shareholders' agreement within a fortnight. The term sheet covers the headline rights in a page; the agreement has to turn each line into working clauses, fill in what the term sheet left out, and carry the founders' instructions on the points still open. Two things go wrong at this stage. A number in the term sheet does not reconcile with its own price, and nobody notices until the allotment. And the rights are written into the agreement but not into the Articles, where they have to sit if they are to bind the company and a transferee. How Justis handles it: Give Justis the signed term sheet, the founders' instructions and the current Articles. It drafts the shareholders' agreement clause by clause from the term sheet, takes the founders' positions where the term sheet is silent or open, and marks each of those in brackets with a note, so the draft that goes out shows what is agreed and what is not. It checks the arithmetic of the round, says which rights have to be carried into the Articles and drafts the amended Articles alongside, and lists the corporate steps the closing needs, such as the ESOP resolution and the increase in authorised capital. Example output: - Arithmetic: ₹8 crore at ₹2,000 per CCPS is 40,000 CCPS, not the 4,000 in the term sheet; 40,000 is what gives the stated 16.67% - Authorised capital: No preference share capital is authorised; the Articles and capital clause must be altered before the CCPS can be issued - Articles: Current Articles carry none of the transfer restrictions, reserved matters or the nominee quorum rule; drafted into new Articles, since rights outside the Articles do not bind the company (V.B. Rangaraj v. V.B. Gopalakrishnan, (1992) 1 SCC 160) - Non-compete: Term sheet runs two years after exit; drafted to the founders' position (while a shareholder or employee) and flagged, with the section 27 Contract Act risk of a post-exit restraint - Drag-along: Term sheet says 2x the post-money valuation; founders' 3x put in brackets for negotiation - Deliverable: Shareholders' agreement and amended Articles in Word, with a schedule of open points Prompt to try (Draft the SHA): We act for the founders. Draft the shareholders' agreement from the attached term sheet, taking the founders' positions from their instructions where the term sheet is silent or open and bracketing those points. Check the round's arithmetic, tell me which rights must go into the Articles and draft the amended Articles, and list the corporate steps needed before closing. Sample documents (2): Term Sheet — Saptarishi Angel Fund and Kestrel Robotics Private Limited (seed round, 18 September 2026); Kestrel Robotics Private Limited — Founders' instructions for the shareholders' agreement, with cap table and extract of the current Articles. #### Redlining a vendor's agreement for the company Problem: When the company is the customer, the paper comes from the vendor: a cloud subscription with an implementation statement of work, written to protect the vendor. The finance team wants it signed this month, and the clauses that matter are the ones a buyer skims: a liability cap of three months' fees, a right to change the terms by posting them online, customer data hosted anywhere. Those clauses are also where the company's own obligations sit. As data fiduciary for the personal data in the system, it has to be told of a breach in time to inform the Data Protection Board and the people affected under section 8(6) of the DPDP Act. How Justis handles it: Write the company's procurement positions down once, with the preferred term and the fallback. Justis reads the vendor's form against them, quotes each clause that departs, and says which position applies and why. It marks up the vendor's own Word file as tracked changes, with a short comment giving the business reason for each change, and lists the points that go beyond the fallback and need the CFO's approval. Example output: - Agreement: Cloud ERP subscription and implementation, vendor's standard form, ₹1.44 crore a year plus ₹96 lakh implementation - Liability: Clause 11.2 caps everything, data breaches included, at 3 months' fees; position is 12 months, with data and confidentiality outside the general cap - Unilateral change: Clause 2.4 lets the vendor amend the terms by posting them online; replaced with amendment only in writing signed by both - Data: Clause 8.2 allows hosting in any region and sub-processors without notice; clause 8.3 gives breach notice only after the vendor's investigation. Changed to India hosting and notice within 24 hours - Renewal and IP: Automatic 3-year renewals at +12% a term; customisations owned by the vendor and licensed only for the term. Both marked up to the playbook - Deliverable: Tracked-change markup on the vendor's .docx with one comment per change, and a note of the points for the CFO Prompt to try (Vendor MSA markup): Review this vendor's master subscription and services agreement against our IT procurement positions. List every clause that departs from our position with the clause quoted, apply the preferred position or the fallback, and mark up the document as tracked changes with a short business reason for each change in a comment. List anything that needs the CFO's approval. Sample documents (2): Master Subscription and Services Agreement — Quillstack Cloud ERP (vendor's standard form, sent to Aranya Flexipack); Aranya Flexipack Limited — Procurement positions for IT, software and services contracts, v2. #### Reviewing draft board minutes before they are circulated Problem: The company secretary drafts the minutes from memory and notes in the days after the meeting, and they are signed once confirmed. Whatever they say becomes the record that an auditor, a lender, an investor or a court will read, and a resolution recorded wrongly is very hard to correct later. The usual defects are small on the page: a director shown as present for an item she left before, a quorum stated for the whole meeting when the articles require more for one item, an interested director recorded as voting, a resolution that the board cannot pass on its own written as final. How Justis handles it: Give Justis the draft minutes with the notice, the attendance register and the articles. It reads each item against who was in the room at that time, the quorum the Act and the articles require for it, the disclosures of interest, and whether the board or the members must approve it. It marks up the draft as tracked changes with a comment explaining each correction, and lists the defects that cannot be fixed in the minutes because the decision itself has to be taken again. Example output: - Draft: Minutes of the board meeting of 16.10.2026, nine items, with the attendance register and Articles - Quorum: Item 7 (₹90 crore loan) taken at 12:35, after Mr. Joshi left at 12:20 and Dr. Iyer at 12:15: two directors present, Article 58 requires three. Not validly decided; to be taken again - Interested director: Item 5 (Sagar Polymers job work): minutes say passed by all directors present, the Chairman included, though he disclosed his interest; s.184(2) bars him from participating - Board or members: Item 6 records the ESOP pool as increased with immediate effect; under Article 140 and s.62(1)(b) it needs a special resolution. Item 7 is written as final without the s.180(1)(c) special resolution or the investor's consent under Article 158(a) - Attendance: Dr. Kavya Iyer listed as a director present from the start; the register shows her as an invitee until her appointment under item 3 - Deliverable: Tracked-change markup of the draft minutes with comments, and a list of items for the next meeting and the EGM notice Prompt to try (Minutes review): Review these draft board minutes against the notice, the attendance register and the Articles. For each item check who was present when it was taken, the quorum required, interested directors and whether the board could decide it alone. Mark up the draft as tracked changes with a comment for each correction, and list anything that must be decided again. Sample documents (3): Aranya Flexipack Limited — Draft minutes of the board meeting of 16 October 2026 (for review before circulation); Aranya Flexipack Limited — Notice, agenda and attendance register of the board meeting of 16 October 2026; Aranya Flexipack Limited — Note on items for the October 2026 meetings, with extract of the Articles. #### A health check of the statutory registers Problem: Before an AGM, a fundraise or a diligence request, someone has to open the statutory registers and see whether they are complete. They are kept by different people, some on paper, some in spreadsheets, and each has its own prescribed particulars under the Act and the rules. What is found is rarely dramatic but always awkward: a transfer entered with no date of registration, a director who resigned months ago still shown without a date of cessation, a CFO whose DIR-12 was filed but who was never entered, a satisfied charge still shown as open, a register kept at the corporate office instead of the registered office. How Justis handles it: Upload the registers, scanned or typed, and run the same questions across all of them in a tabular review: which register it is, its last entry, missing particulars, events referred to but not entered, authentication and where it is kept. Every cell cites the entry and page. Ask the Associate to turn the grid into a rectification list with the entry to be made in each register and the form, if any, still to be filed. Example output: - Registers read: Members (MGT-1), directors and KMP, loans and investments (MBP-2), charges (CHG-7) - Members: Transfer of 5,000 shares approved on 12.03.2026 entered with no date of registration and no CS initials; LLPIN and PAN of one member blank - Directors and KMP: Resigned nominee director has no date of cessation; the CFO appointed on 01.06.2026 is in the DIR-12 index but not in the register - Charges: Charge 100561302 satisfied (CHG-4 filed 05.08.2026) still shown open; the 12.03.2026 equipment charge has no charge ID and its CHG-1 is not filed - Place kept: MBP-2 kept at the Whitefield corporate office, not the registered office; two entries unsigned with purpose, interest rate and board resolution blank - Deliverable: Grid in Excel with the entry and page cited, and a rectification list in Word Prompt to try (Registers health check): Review each statutory register in this matter. For each, tell me which register it is, its last entry, every entry with a required particular missing, any event the document refers to that is not entered, whether the entries are authenticated, and where it is kept. Then give me a rectification list with the entry and any form still to be filed. Opens in: Tabular Review, one column per question (Register, Last entry date, Entries in the extract, Missing particulars, Events not entered, Authentication, Kept at registered office). Sample documents (4): Kaveri Agritech Private Limited — Register of Members (Form MGT-1), equity shares, scanned extract as on 30 September 2026; Kaveri Agritech Private Limited — Register of Directors and Key Managerial Personnel and their shareholding, scanned extract as on 30 September 2026; Kaveri Agritech Private Limited — Register of loans, guarantees, security and acquisitions (Form MBP-2), scanned extract as on 30 September 2026; Kaveri Agritech Private Limited — Register of Charges (Form CHG-7), scanned extract as on 30 September 2026. Questions: - Q: Can it find filings that were never made? A: It finds the gap between what was resolved and what is on file. It reads the minutes and the filed forms together and marks each resolution that should have been followed by a form that is not in the matter. It works from the documents you upload, so it cannot see the registrar's records directly. - Q: Does it read the company's articles? A: Yes. The articles are read with the rest of the record, and where they add to the Act, such as a higher quorum or a reserved matter, the check follows the articles and cites the article number. - Q: Does it handle FEMA as well as company law? A: Yes. For an issue or transfer involving a non-resident, it applies the NDI Rules on pricing, sectoral caps and reporting alongside the Companies Act, and cites the provision for each step. - Q: Can it draft minutes from a recording? A: Yes. Upload the recording, in English or Hindi, and it transcribes the meeting and drafts the minutes in your format, with each resolution in its final wording for you to approve. - Q: Is it useful for listed companies? A: Yes. It works through the LODR, the SAST Regulations and the PIT Regulations as well as the Companies Act, and marks where a disclosure turns on a materiality judgment that stays with you. - Q: What should a corporate lawyer try first? A: The corporate record for a company you already know. Upload the minutes and filings for three years, ask for every action in date order with the gaps marked, and check it against your own tracker. It is the fastest way to see where it helps and where you still want to look yourself. ### How M&A lawyers use Justis AI URL: https://askjustis.com/use-cases/m-and-a Every deal runs on the same compressed clock. The data room opens with eight hundred documents, the first draft of the SPA arrives a week later, and the client wants the red flags before the price is agreed. Diligence gets sampled because there is no time to read everything, and the finding that matters is in the part nobody read. Justis reads the whole room with you. You upload the data room to one project, and it reads every file, scans included, then answers your diligence questions across all of it at once, ranks what actually threatens the deal, and carries each finding through to the SPA, the disclosure schedule and the closing checklist. Every finding cites the document, clause and page it came from, and anything it could not confirm is marked, not assumed. Try this first: Take a deal you have already closed. Upload the data room to a project and ask for change of control and assignment across every contract in it. Compare the grid with the consents list you actually worked from. That tells you in fifteen minutes how far to trust it on a room you have not yet opened. #### Reading the whole data room Problem: A mid-market target puts eight hundred documents in the room: customer and supplier contracts, leases, loan papers, employment agreements, IP assignments, licences and litigation files, a fifth of them scanned. The diligence report is due in three weeks, and the associate team can read perhaps half of it with care. The report that results is organised by who read what, not by what threatens the deal. The unregistered lease, the licence that lapsed last year and the guarantee given for a promoter's company sit in different sections, with equal weight. How Justis handles it: Upload the room to a project. Justis reads every document, runs OCR on the scans, and answers your diligence questions across the whole set in a tabular review: one row per document, one column per question, each cell citing the clause and page. It then ranks the findings by what they do to the deal, from conditions to closing down to disclosure items, and drafts the red flag report in that order, with every finding linked to its source. Example output: - Documents read: 812 files, 14,600 pages, 171 scanned documents read by OCR - Questions asked: 22, from title to shares and charges to licences, litigation and data protection - Deal-level findings: Factory lease of 29 years, unregistered and under-stamped; a corporate guarantee for ₹18 crore given for a promoter entity - Licence gap: Consent to operate under the Water Act for the second plant expired 31.03.2026, renewal application on file - Not readable: 3 scanned pages illegible; listed for a request to the seller, not guessed - Deliverable: Red flag report in Word, ranked by effect on the deal, with the grid in Excel Prompt to try (Red flag report): Review every document in this data room against the diligence questions in the attached list. Give me the answers in a grid with the clause and page in each cell, then rank the findings by their effect on the deal and draft a red flag report in that order. Sample documents (6): Data Room Index and Diligence Question List: Project Ghat; Data Room Folders 3.2, 5, 6 and 7: Guarantee, Consents to Operate, PF and Litigation; Lease Deed: Plant I, Chakan (29 years); Term Loan Agreement: Konkan Commercial Bank (₹65 crore); Lease Agreement: Bhiwandi Warehouse (11 years); Supply Agreement: Suvarna Home & Personal Care (largest customer). #### Change of control and third-party consents Problem: The share purchase changes control of the target, and some of its contracts and loans say what happens next: consent required, notice only, a right to terminate, or an acceleration of the loan. The consents list decides the conditions precedent, and a missed consent from a lender or a key customer is the problem that surfaces after closing. The clauses do not use the same words. One agreement defines change of control by shareholding, another by board control, a third by any change in the promoter group, and several say nothing at all. How Justis handles it: Justis reads every agreement in the room for change of control, assignment and anti-assignment, termination and acceleration, and applies each clause's own definition to the deal structure you describe, rather than a generic test. It returns the consents list with the clause quoted, the counterparty, the notice period and what happens without consent, and drafts the consent request letters for the ones that need them. Example output: - Agreements read: 436 contracts, loan agreements and leases - Consent needed: 31, including the term loan from the lead bank and 4 of the top ten customers - Acceleration: Term loan, clause 21.3: a change in the promoters' shareholding below 51% is an event of default - Different definitions: The largest customer contract triggers on a change in board control, not shareholding: caught by this deal - Notice only: 58 agreements need notice within 30 days of closing - Deliverable: Consents list in Excel with the clause quoted, and draft consent letters in Word Prompt to try (Consents list): The buyer is acquiring 76% of the target from the promoters. Read every agreement in this data room and apply its own change of control definition to that structure. Give me the consents list with the clause quoted, the notice period and the consequence of no consent, and draft the consent request letters. Opens in: Tabular Review, one column per question (Counterparty, Document type, Trigger and definition, Shareholding threshold, Triggered by this deal?, What is required, Notice period (days), Consequence without it). Sample documents (4): Term Loan Agreement: Konkan Commercial Bank (₹65 crore); Supply Agreement: Suvarna Home & Personal Care (largest customer); Lease Deed: Plant I, Chakan (29 years); Lease Agreement: Bhiwandi Warehouse (11 years). #### The SPA issues list and negotiating positions Problem: The seller's first draft of the share purchase agreement arrives, and the client wants the issues list before the call tomorrow. The points that matter are spread across definitions, warranties, the limitations schedule and the boilerplate: an indemnity cap well below the exposure, a survival period shorter than the tax limitation period, an exclusive remedy clause that shuts out claims the buyer will need. The issues list also has to connect to diligence. A warranty is only worth negotiating if you know what the room says about it. How Justis handles it: Give Justis the draft and the side you act for. It builds the issues list clause by clause, with the problem in one line and why it matters for this deal, linking each point to the diligence finding that makes it important. For the points you choose, it drafts positions from firm to middle ground with the commercial reason for each, and marks up the draft as tracked changes in Word with a comment explaining each change. Example output: - Draft: Seller's first draft SPA, 84 pages, 11 schedules - Issues: 37 points, 9 marked for the call; each linked to the clause and, where relevant, the diligence finding - Indemnity cap: 10% of the price against a ₹18 crore guarantee exposure found in diligence: raise or carve out as a specific indemnity - Survival: 18 months for all warranties; tax warranties need to survive for the period in which the tax authority can reopen the years concerned - Exclusive remedy: Clause 12.1 as drafted excludes claims for fraud; carve fraud out expressly - Deliverable: Issues list, positions note for the call, and tracked-change markup of the SPA Prompt to try (SPA issues list): We act for the buyer. Review this draft SPA and build an issues list clause by clause, with the problem in one line and why it matters, linking each point to the diligence findings in this matter. Mark the ten points for tomorrow's call and draft our positions on each. Sample documents (4): Share Purchase Agreement: Sellers' First Draft (Project Ghat); Data Room Folders 3.2, 5, 6 and 7: Guarantee, Consents to Operate, PF and Litigation; Term Sheet: Project Ghat (Nordhavn / Sahyadri Flexipack); Disclosure Letter: Sellers' Draft (Project Ghat). #### The disclosure schedule and warranty cross-check Problem: When you act for the seller, the disclosure letter is the seller's protection, and it is only as good as its specificity. A general disclosure of the whole data room may not be accepted, and a specific disclosure drafted from what the founders remember leaves out what the documents show. When you act for the buyer, the same exercise runs the other way: what does the room show that the seller has not disclosed against each warranty? How Justis handles it: Justis reads each warranty in the SPA against the documents in the room and says what needs disclosing, with the document and page, so the schedule is drafted from the record rather than from memory. For the buyer it produces the reverse: each warranty, what the room shows, what the seller has disclosed, and the gap between them, ready for a specific indemnity or a price conversation. Example output: - Warranties read: 64 warranties in Schedule 4 - Disclosure needed: 19 warranties; for example, employment: provident fund contributions for four months deposited late - Litigation: Two pending matters: an appeal against a tax demand and a consumer complaint, with the forum and amount - Property: Warehouse lease of 11 years not registered under the Registration Act - Nothing to disclose: Title to shares: register of members, share certificates and filings agree - Deliverable: Disclosure letter in Word, each disclosure cited to the data room index Prompt to try (Disclosure schedule): We act for the seller. Read each warranty in Schedule 4 of the SPA against the documents in this data room, tell me what needs specific disclosure with the document and page, and draft the disclosure letter referenced to the data room index. Sample documents (6): Share Purchase Agreement: Sellers' First Draft (Project Ghat); Data Room Folders 3.2, 5, 6 and 7: Guarantee, Consents to Operate, PF and Litigation; Disclosure Letter: Sellers' Draft (Project Ghat); Lease Agreement: Bhiwandi Warehouse (11 years); Data Room Index and Diligence Question List: Project Ghat; Cap Table and Register of Members: Sahyadri Flexipack. #### CCI, FEMA and the regulatory path Problem: Before the timetable is fixed, someone has to know which approvals the deal needs. Under the Competition Act 2002, a combination above the asset or turnover thresholds, or since September 2024 one valued above ₹2,000 crore where the target has substantial business operations in India, cannot close until the CCI approves it or the review period runs out. A cross-border deal adds FEMA: the NDI Rules on sectoral caps and the approval route, the pricing guidelines, deferred consideration limits, the FC-TRS filing, and the government approval that Press Note 3 of 2020 requires for any investor with a beneficial owner in a country sharing a land border with India. How Justis handles it: Give Justis the structure, the parties' figures and the target's business. It works through the CCI thresholds and exemptions in order, including the deal value threshold and the target exemption, and says whether a notice is needed, citing the provision and the figures it used. It then maps the FEMA steps for the structure: route and cap, the price floor or ceiling, how much of the price can be deferred and for how long, and each filing with its last date. The result is a regulatory path note that sets the timetable. Example output: - Deal: Acquisition of 100% of an Indian SaaS company by a US buyer for ₹2,450 crore - Asset and turnover tests: Target below the de minimis limits; parties' Indian figures below the s.5 thresholds - Deal value threshold: Value above ₹2,000 crore and a large share of the target's users in India: notice to the CCI needed before closing - FEMA route: Automatic route, no sectoral cap for this activity; no land-border beneficial owner found in the buyer's chain - Deferred consideration: Earn-out of ₹400 crore is within 25% of the price and payable within 18 months: permitted - Filing: FC-TRS within 60 days of receipt of the consideration; if received 15.09.2026, by 14.11.2026 Prompt to try (Regulatory path): Here is the deal structure and the parties' figures. Tell me whether the deal needs CCI approval, working through the asset and turnover thresholds, the deal value threshold and the exemptions with the figures. Then map the FEMA route, pricing, deferred consideration and filings, with the last date for each. Sample documents (1): Project Kite: Deal Structure and Parties' Figures (US buyer, Indian SaaS target). #### Listed targets: takeover code and insider trading Problem: When the target is listed, the SAST Regulations decide the deal's shape. Crossing 25% of the voting rights, acquiring more than 5% in a financial year above that, or acquiring control triggers an open offer for at least 26% more, at a price the regulations fix, announced on the day the agreement is signed. The PIT Regulations apply from the first conversation: every person brought inside has to be recorded, diligence information is unpublished price sensitive information, and sharing it with a bidder needs the board's view that the deal is in the company's interest. How Justis handles it: Justis works through the triggers for the structure you describe, including indirect acquisitions through a parent, and says which regulation is triggered, when the public announcement is due and the minimum offer size. It lists the inputs the offer price has to be tested against and marks each figure you still need from the merchant banker, drafts the insider list entries and the board note for sharing information in diligence, and builds the takeover timetable from the announcement date. Example output: - Deal: Acquirer buys 22% from the promoters and 8% by preferential allotment, reaching 30% - Trigger: Regulation 3(1): crosses 25% of voting rights; open offer required - Offer size: At least 26% of the expanded share capital - Public announcement: On the day the SPA is signed and the board approves the preferential issue - Price inputs: Negotiated price, preferential issue price, 52-week and 26-week tests: figures from the merchant banker marked as pending - Deliverable: Trigger note, takeover timetable, board note on sharing UPSI, insider list entries Prompt to try (Takeover check): Our client will buy 22% of a listed company from the promoters and subscribe to 8% by preferential allotment. Tell me which SAST regulations are triggered, when the public announcement is due and the minimum offer size, list the price inputs we need, and draft the board note for sharing information in diligence. Sample documents (2): Listed Target: Acquirer's Proposal and Company Secretary's Briefing (Parvati Speciality Chemicals); SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (amended up to 5 December 2025). #### Conditions, closing and post-closing filings Problem: Closing is a checklist of forty items held by six parties: consents, regulatory approvals, board and shareholder resolutions, resignations and appointments, the share transfer, the payment and the escrow. The checklist is kept in a spreadsheet that falls out of date with every draft of the SPA. After closing the filings start, each with its own clock: the FEMA reporting, the change in directors, the register of members, any new allotment's return, and the notices that the consents list promised. How Justis handles it: Justis builds the closing checklist from the executed SPA itself: every condition precedent and every closing deliverable, with the clause, the party responsible and the document that satisfies it. As documents are added to the project, it marks items as satisfied and cites the document. It then produces the post-closing list with the last date for each filing and notice, computed from the closing date, and drafts the board resolutions and forms for the closing meeting. Example output: - Conditions precedent: 14 conditions from clause 5; 11 satisfied, each cited to the document on file - Open: Lender consent (clause 5.1(c)), CCI approval (clause 5.1(a)), no-objection from the landlord (clause 5.1(f)) - Closing deliverables: 26 items from clause 7, each with the party responsible - Post-closing: DIR-12 for 3 nominee directors within 30 days; FC-TRS within 60 days of receipt of the consideration - Notices: 58 notice-only counterparties, draft notices ready - Deliverable: Closing checklist and post-closing tracker in Excel, closing board resolutions in Word Prompt to try (Closing checklist): Build the closing checklist from the executed SPA in this matter: every condition precedent and closing deliverable with the clause, the party responsible and the document on file that satisfies it. Then give me the post-closing filings and notices with the last date for each, assuming closing on 30 October 2026. Sample documents (4): Share Purchase Agreement: Sellers' First Draft (Project Ghat); Closing File: SPA Execution Note and CP Evidence (Project Ghat); Cap Table and Register of Members: Sahyadri Flexipack; Term Loan Agreement: Konkan Commercial Bank (₹65 crore). #### Drafting the term sheet from deal notes Problem: The commercial terms are agreed on two calls, and what the associate has is the partner's notes: a price, a stake, a holdback the founders accepted in principle, a non-compete the buyer was firm on, and a list of open points. The client wants the term sheet out within the week. Notes are written in the room, and they rarely survive arithmetic and the law intact. A per-share price does not divide into the total, a deferred payment is larger and longer than FEMA allows for a non-resident buyer, and exclusivity runs out before the signing date everyone is working towards. How Justis handles it: Give Justis the notes and your firm's format. It drafts the term sheet, commercial terms in a table, then the binding and non-binding paragraphs, carrying each open point as a bracket rather than inventing a position. Before it drafts, it checks the numbers and the structure against the law that applies, the NDI Rules for a cross-border share purchase and section 27 of the Contract Act for restraints, and gives you a short list of what to settle with the client before the draft goes to the other side. Example output: - Deal: Japanese buyer acquiring 60% (4,80,000 shares) of an auto components company from its three founders for ₹180 crore - Price per share: Notes give ₹3,570; ₹180 crore ÷ 4,80,000 is ₹3,750, which is also ₹300 crore ÷ 8,00,000. Drafted at ₹3,750 and flagged - Deferred consideration: 30% (₹54 crore) payable 24 months after closing; Rule 9(6) of the NDI Rules allows up to 25%, within 18 months of the transfer agreement. Bracketed with the permitted alternative - Exclusivity: 60 days from a 9 October signing ends on 8 December, before the 15 December SPA target - Non-compete: Five years after the founders leave employment: flagged under section 27; restraint tied to the sale of shares and goodwill suggested instead - Deliverable: Term sheet in Word in the firm's format, with a one-page list of points for the client Prompt to try (Draft the term sheet): We act for the buyer. Draft a term sheet from the attached call notes: commercial terms in a table, then the binding and non-binding paragraphs, with every open point in brackets. Before drafting, check the price, the deferred consideration, exclusivity and the restrictive covenants against the numbers and the law, and give me a short list of what to settle with the client. Sample documents (1): Project Neem — Partner's notes of the two deal calls (Kotobuki Seiki / Varahi Precision Components). #### Marking up the buyer's SPA for the sellers Problem: On the sell side, the first draft comes from the buyer and pulls every protection its way: joint and several liability, a cap at the whole price, warranties without knowledge qualifiers, disclosure limited to what the buyer accepts in writing, a long non-compete and a holdback larger than the term sheet allowed. The founders want the markup in a day, measured against what they signed in the term sheet and what they told you they will not accept, and they want to know if any clause would not work legally even if they agreed to it. How Justis handles it: Give Justis the buyer's draft, the signed term sheet terms and the sellers' instructions. It reads the draft clause by clause against them, and marks up the buyer's own Word file as tracked changes with a short comment for each change that can be read out on the call. It separates what departs from the term sheet, which the buyer has already agreed, from new points, and names the clauses that also raise a legal problem, such as a deferred payment outside the FEMA limits. Example output: - Draft: Buyer's first draft SPA for 60% of the company, 12 clauses with schedules - Holdback: Clause 3.3 keeps 30% (₹54 crore) for 36 months with no interest; term sheet says 20% in escrow for 18 months from the SPA, and the NDI Rules cap it at 25% and 18 months - Liability: Clause 9.1 caps at 100% of the price and clause 9.4 makes the sellers jointly and severally liable; term sheet says 20% for business warranties and several liability pro rata - Disclosure and knowledge: Disclosed means only what the buyer accepts in writing, and clause 7.2 removes knowledge qualifiers; changed to fair disclosure including the data room - MAC and termination: MAC includes general economic and change-in-law events; clause 5.2 lets the buyer walk for any breach, however minor - Non-compete: Seven years worldwide from the end of employment; term sheet says three years from closing, in India Prompt to try (Seller-side SPA markup): We act for the sellers. Mark up the buyer's draft SPA against the signed term sheet terms and the sellers' instructions, as tracked changes on the buyer's document with a short comment for each change. Separate departures from the term sheet from new points, and tell me which clauses would also be a problem under FEMA or the Contract Act. Sample documents (3): Share Purchase Agreement — Buyer's First Draft (Project Neem, Kotobuki Seiki / Varahi Precision Components); Project Neem — Sellers' instructions on the Buyer's first draft SPA (founders of Varahi Precision Components); Project Neem — Partner's notes of the two deal calls (Kotobuki Seiki / Varahi Precision Components). #### Filling the FC-TRS particulars from the closing documents Problem: When a non-resident buys shares from residents, the resident side reports the transfer in Form FC-TRS within sixty days of the transfer or the receipt of funds, whichever is earlier. The particulars come from the SPA, the valuation report, the closing memorandum, the bank's inward remittance advices and its KYC report, and each holds a different piece. The authorised dealer bank checks them against each other. A credit that is short of the price, a payment from a group company rather than the buyer, or an escrow period that runs past what the NDI Rules allow comes back as a query after filing, when the sixty days are already running. How Justis handles it: Give Justis the firm's blank Word template of the form's fields and the closing file. It fills each field from the documents, cites the source for every entry, and leaves a field open with a comment where the documents disagree. It checks the price against the fair value, adds up each seller's credit against the consideration, reads the escrow against Rule 9(6) of the NDI Rules, and computes the last date for filing. Example output: - Transfer: 7,60,000 equity shares at ₹2,200, ₹167.20 crore, residents to a Dutch buyer; shares credited and funds received 06.11.2026 - Last date: FC-TRS by 05.01.2027, 60 days from 06.11.2026 - Pricing: ₹2,200 against a fair value of ₹2,146 (merchant banker, DCF): not below fair value - Short credit: Rohan Deshpande received ₹32,55,62,500 against ₹32,56,00,000 due at closing: ₹37,500 short after charges deducted abroad - Remitter: Meera Deshpande's ₹40.70 crore came from the buyer's Danish parent, not the buyer; the bank's KYC note says so. Left open for the AD bank - Escrow: 7.5% (₹12.54 crore) is within 25%, but release on 06.05.2028 is 18 months from closing; Rule 9(6) counts from the transfer agreement of 18.09.2026 Prompt to try (Fill FC-TRS particulars): Fill the attached FC-TRS particulars template from the closing documents in this matter. Give the source for every field, leave a field blank with a comment where the documents disagree, check the price against the fair value, reconcile each seller's credit with the consideration, test the escrow against Rule 9(6) of the NDI Rules, and give the last date for filing. Sample documents (5): Blank working template — particulars for Form FC-TRS (transfer of capital instruments between a resident and a person resident outside India); Project Ghat — Closing memorandum, inward remittance advices and KYC report (closing of 6 November 2026); Share Purchase Agreement: Sellers' First Draft (Project Ghat); Closing File: SPA Execution Note and CP Evidence (Project Ghat); Cap Table and Register of Members: Sahyadri Flexipack. #### Key employment contracts and IP assignments in the data room Problem: In a technology deal the value sits with a few people and the code they wrote, and both are papered in documents nobody reads together: the founders' and senior managers' employment agreements, the founders' IP assignment deeds and the agreements with outside developers. The questions are the same for each one: what a change of control costs, whether the IP was actually assigned or only promised, what the restrictive covenants say and how long notice is. And one rule of copyright law catches outside developers' agreements repeatedly: an assignment silent on duration is deemed to be for five years, and silent on territory, to extend only to India. How Justis handles it: Upload the agreements and ask the same questions of each in a tabular review, one row per document and one column per question, every cell citing the clause and page. Then ask the Associate to turn the grid into the findings for the diligence report and the specific indemnities and closing deliverables the SPA needs, such as a fresh assignment from the developer. Example output: - Documents: Three employment agreements, one founder IP assignment deed, one outside developer agreement - Change of control cost: VP Sales: 24 months' fixed pay (₹2.40 crore) on completion alone, single-trigger; Head of Product: 12 months, only if dismissed or resigning for good reason within a year - Promise, not assignment: CTO's agreement: she will assign on request; her pre-existing ledger engine stays with her, licensed only while she is employed - Section 19: Developer's assignment of the e-invoicing module states no duration or territory: deemed five years from 30.06.2022 and India only (s.19(5), (6)), while the module is sold in the UAE and Singapore - Clean: Founder's deed: present assignment, worldwide, full term, lapse under s.19(4) excluded - Deliverable: Grid in Excel with clauses cited, and the findings with proposed SPA protections in Word Prompt to try (People and IP review): Review each employment agreement and IP document in this data room. For each, give the person and role, any change of control payment and whether it is single or double trigger, whether IP is presently assigned or only promised, the duration and territory of any copyright assignment, the restrictive covenants and the notice period. Then list the findings with the SPA protection each needs. Opens in: Tabular Review, one column per question (Person and role, Document date, Change of control payment, Change of control trigger, IP assignment, Copyright duration and territory, Restrictive covenants, Notice period (days)). Sample documents (5): Employment Agreement — Divya Rao, Chief Technology Officer (Lumen Ledger Technologies, 2015), data room 8.1.2; Employment Agreement — Arjun Bhatia, Vice President, Sales (Lumen Ledger Technologies, 2023), data room 8.1.5; Employment Agreement — Neha Kapoor, Head of Product (Lumen Ledger Technologies, 2024), data room 8.1.7; Software Development and Assignment Agreement — Ironbark Labs LLP and Lumen Ledger Technologies (GST e-invoicing module, 2022), data room 8.3.1; Deed of Assignment of Intellectual Property — Karthik Raman to Lumen Ledger Technologies (2015), data room 8.2.1. #### Post-closing integration: moving contracts across the group Problem: After closing, the buyer starts moving business between its existing Indian company and the target: customer contracts one way, a shared warehouse, some production to another plant. The integration team assumes a letter will do for each contract. Whether it will depends on each contract's own words. One allows assignment to an affiliate on notice, one forbids it without consent, one is silent but carries obligations, which under Indian law move only by novation with the other side's agreement. And a consent obtained for closing may itself have been conditional on the very change the integration plan proposes. How Justis handles it: Give Justis the integration plan and the contracts. It reads each contract's assignment, change of control and other relevant clauses, says what route each move needs and who has to sign, and checks the plan against the consents and notices already given at closing. It drafts the documents for each move, notice letters, consent requests and tripartite novation agreements, and lists the dates by which each must go out. Example output: - Plan: Three supply contracts from the buyer's Indian subsidiary to the target, a warehouse sub-let and a production shift, effective 01.01.2027 - Notice will do: Harit Foods, clause 18.1: assignment to an affiliate on 30 days' prior notice, so by 02.12.2026, and only to a plant Harit has approved - Consent needed: Kalinga Beverages, clause 15.1: no assignment or novation even to an affiliate without consent; tripartite novation drafted - Silent contract: Doaba Polyfilms has no assignment clause, but carries a 1,200-tonne minimum offtake and a bank guarantee; obligations move only by novation (s.62, Contract Act); 210-tonne shortfall charge of ₹37.80 lakh stays with the subsidiary - Conflicts with closing: Moving Suvarna's shampoo pouches to Chennai breaks clause 2.2 and the condition in Suvarna's consent of 29.09.2026 (no change of location for 24 months) - Warehouse: Sub-let to a group company needs written notice under clause 6.1 ('group company' is undefined); change-of-control notice under clause 7.1 due by 06.12.2026 Prompt to try (Integration documents): Read the integration plan and each contract it names. For every move, tell me from the contract's own clauses whether a notice, a consent or a tripartite novation is needed and who must sign, check the plan against the consents and notices given at closing, draft the documents for each move, and list the dates by which each must go out. Sample documents (5): Project Ghat — Post-closing integration plan: contracts to move between Nordhavn Packaging India and Sahyadri Flexipack; Nordhavn Packaging India — Contracts pack: extracts of the Harit Foods, Kalinga Beverages and Doaba Polyfilms agreements; Supply Agreement: Suvarna Home & Personal Care (largest customer); Lease Agreement: Bhiwandi Warehouse (11 years); Closing File: SPA Execution Note and CP Evidence (Project Ghat). Questions: - Q: Does it read every document or a sample? A: Every document in the project. Tabular review asks each question of each file and returns the clause and page behind every answer, so the report is built on the whole room. - Q: Can it tell us whether the deal needs CCI approval? A: It works through the thresholds, the deal value threshold and the exemptions with the figures you give it, and says whether a notice looks necessary and why. The decision to file, and the filing itself, stay with you. - Q: Does it know the FEMA rules for cross-border deals? A: Yes. It applies the NDI Rules on routes, caps, pricing and deferred consideration, and Press Note 3 of 2020 on investors from countries sharing a land border, and cites the provision for each step. - Q: Can it mark up the SPA in Word? A: Yes. Changes land as tracked changes on the other side's own file, with a comment giving the reason for each, so the markup goes back in a form they recognise. - Q: What happens when the seller adds documents late? A: They are read as soon as they are added to the project. Ask the same questions again and the grid, the red flag report and the closing checklist pick up the new material, with the new documents cited. - Q: What should an M&A lawyer try first? A: Change of control across a data room from a deal you have already closed. Compare the grid with the consents list you actually used. It is the fastest way to see where it helps and where you still want to look yourself. ### How in-house teams use Justis AI URL: https://askjustis.com/use-cases/in-house An in-house legal team is small and the whole company sends it work. Procurement needs the vendor contract back today, sales has a customer's paper with a deadline, HR has a complaint that has to be handled by the book, and the board wants to know what the new data protection rules mean for the business. The work that matters most waits behind the work that is merely urgent. Justis takes the first pass off the queue. It reviews contracts against the positions your team has set, redlines the counterparty's Word file, answers the business's questions with the provision behind the answer, and turns a new law into a list of what the company has to change. Every conclusion cites the clause, page or section it came from, and anything it could not confirm is marked, not assumed. Try this first: Take a vendor agreement your team has already negotiated. Write down your positions on five clauses as a playbook, run the counterparty's first draft through it, and compare the markup with the one you actually sent. That tells you in fifteen minutes how far to trust it with the next contract in the queue. #### Vendor and customer contracts against your playbook Problem: Most of the queue is the same kind of paper: a SaaS subscription, a services agreement, a distribution contract, each on the counterparty's form. Each one has to be read against the same positions on liability, indemnity, renewal, data and governing law, and each one is wanted back by the business the same day. When the positions live in one senior lawyer's head, they drift. A cap accepted under pressure last quarter becomes the precedent the next vendor cites. How Justis handles it: Write the company's positions down once as a playbook, per contract type, with the preferred term, the fallback and the point at which it goes to the General Counsel. Justis reads each incoming agreement against it, quotes the clause that departs, and says which position applies. It marks up the counterparty's own Word file as tracked changes with the reason for each change in a comment, and writes a short note for the business owner in plain language: what was changed, what is still open and what needs their decision. Example output: - Agreement: SaaS subscription for an HR platform, vendor's form, 26 pages - Off position: 6 clauses: liability cap, auto-renewal, data processing, sub-processors, price escalation, governing law - Liability: Cap at one month's fees against a position of twelve months; fallback of six with data breach carved out - Data: No processing terms although employee personal data is shared; company DPA to be attached - Escalation: Annual price increase of up to 12% at the vendor's discretion; playbook allows 5% or CPI - Deliverable: Tracked-change markup on the vendor's .docx and a half-page note for the HR head Prompt to try (Playbook review): Review this vendor agreement against our SaaS playbook. List every clause that departs from our position with the clause quoted, apply the preferred position or the fallback, mark up the document as tracked changes with the reason in a comment, and write a short note for the business owner on what is still open. Sample documents (2): Orbitly People SaaS Subscription Agreement (vendor's draft); Nilgiri Edulabs Contract Playbook (SaaS and NDA positions). #### NDAs at volume Problem: The business signs dozens of NDAs a month, for vendors, partners, candidates and potential acquirers. Each one is short and none of them is identical: one is one-way when it should be mutual, one has no end date for the obligations, one includes a non-solicit that nobody asked for. Reading them properly takes more time than they seem to deserve, and skimming them is how a residuals clause or an unlimited indemnity gets signed. How Justis handles it: Set the NDA positions once and let Justis triage each incoming NDA: sign as is, sign with the listed changes, or send to a lawyer. It gives the reason for each call with the clause quoted. For a batch, a tabular review puts every NDA in a row with the points that matter in columns, so the team sees the whole week's NDAs on one screen. Example output: - NDAs reviewed: 18 received this week - Sign as is: 11 match the playbook - Sign with changes: 5: three one-way where the discussion is mutual, two with no end date for the confidentiality obligation - To a lawyer: 2: a residuals clause letting the other side use what its people remember, and a non-solicit of employees for 24 months - Deliverable: Triage grid in Excel and tracked-change markups for the five that need changes Prompt to try (NDA triage): Review every NDA in this folder against our NDA playbook. For each one say sign as is, sign with changes, or send to a lawyer, with the clause quoted for each issue, and mark up the ones that need changes as tracked changes. Opens in: Tabular Review, one column per question (Counterparty and purpose, Mutual or one-way, Obligations last (years), Residuals clause, Non-solicit or indemnity, Governing law, Triage). Sample documents (3): Confidentiality Agreement from Halden Education Group (residuals and non-solicit); NDA from Coralbay Content Studios (one-way, no end date); Mutual NDA from Kestrel Analytics LLP. #### Renewals, notice periods and the contract base Problem: The company holds several hundred signed contracts, many of which renew automatically unless notice is given months in advance. Nobody owns the calendar, so the renewals that should have been renegotiated simply roll over at the vendor's new price. The same contract base is where the business's other questions land: which contracts can we exit for convenience, which ones still name the supplier we replaced, which ones let the customer audit us. How Justis handles it: Upload the signed contracts to a project and ask once. Tabular review returns a grid of every agreement with the term, the renewal mechanism, the notice period and the last date to give notice, each cell citing the clause and page. Sort it by the last date for notice, export it to Excel, and ask Justis to draft the non-renewal or renegotiation notices for the ones the business wants to act on. Example output: - Contracts read: 286 signed agreements, 41 of them scanned - Auto-renewing: 74, of which 12 renew in the next quarter - Next deadline: Cloud hosting renews 01.01.2027 for 24 months; 90 days' notice needed, last date 03.10.2026 - Exit for convenience: 39 agreements allow it, with notice from 30 to 180 days - Not readable: One scanned signature page illegible; marked for manual review, not guessed - Deliverable: Renewal calendar in Excel with the clause in every cell, and draft non-renewal notices in Word Prompt to try (Renewal calendar): Review every signed contract in this matter for term, renewal mechanism, notice period and termination for convenience. Give me a grid with the clause and page in each cell, sorted by the last date to give notice, and draft non-renewal notices for the contracts I select. Sample documents (2): Stratacore Cloud Hosting Services Agreement (executed); Brightpath Schools Institutional Subscription Agreement (executed, scanned). #### Audit the whole contract repository in one grid Problem: The company's signed contracts sit in a shared drive: Word files, PDFs from the counterparty, and a third of them scanned from paper with stamps and signatures. Nobody can say from it how much the company spends a year and in which currency, which contracts renew on their own, which are governed by foreign law, or which were never signed by both sides. Reading a hundred agreements to answer that takes a junior lawyer two weeks, and the answers are in a spreadsheet nobody can check against the page they came from. How Justis handles it: Put the repository in a matter and run one tabular review over all of it. Justis reads each file, runs OCR on the scans, and fills one row per contract: the counterparty, type, effective and expiry dates, auto-renewal, notice period, annual value and currency, yearly escalation, governing law, signatures, red flags and a risk rating. Every cell cites the page it came from. Each column has its own type, so dates sort as dates, amounts as numbers and the risk rating as a pill. Sort by expiry, filter the High-risk rows, export to Excel, and ask the review's chat to explain a row or draft the non-renewal letters. Example output: - Contracts read: 100 files: 33 Word, 35 typed PDFs and 32 scanned copies, plus the GeM General Terms the company sells under - Grid: 13 typed columns: dates, amounts, currency, percentages, yes/no, tags and lists, each cell citing its page - Auto-renewing: Contracts that renew on their own, sorted by the last date to give notice - Foreign law: SaaS contracts governed by Singapore, English or Delaware law, paid in USD, EUR or SGD - Red flags: Uncapped indemnities from the company, no personal-data terms in contracts that handle student data, execution versions signed by one side only - Deliverable: The grid exported to Excel, and a list of contracts to renegotiate before they renew Prompt to try (Contract repository audit): Run a tabular review over every contract in this folder: counterparty, agreement type, effective and expiry dates, whether it renews automatically, the termination notice in days, the annual value and its currency, the yearly price escalation, governing law and forum, red flags, whether both parties signed, and a Low / Medium / High risk rating. Cite the page in every cell. Opens in: Tabular Review, one column per question (Counterparty, Agreement type, Effective date, Expiry date, Auto-renewal, Notice to terminate (days), Annual value, Currency, Yearly escalation, Governing law and forum, Red flags, Signed by both, Risk). Sample documents (100): Stratacore Cloud Hosting Services Agreement (executed); Brightpath Schools Institutional Subscription Agreement (executed, scanned); Everpeak SaaS Labs — SaaS Subscription Agreement (2026); New Academy, Hyderabad — School Subscription Agreement (2026); Sunrise International School, Mumbai — School Subscription Agreement (2023); Kaveri Delta Systems — SaaS Subscription Agreement (2021); Godavari SaaS Labs — SaaS Subscription Agreement (2022); Janapada Technologies — SaaS Subscription Agreement (2026); Narmada Infotech — Services Agreement (2026); Yatra Cloud — Data Processing Agreement (2026) and 90 more. #### Questions from the business, answered with the source Problem: Marketing wants to launch a free trial that converts to a paid plan, sales wants to promise a customer a service credit, and finance asks whether a vendor can be paid in advance. Each question needs a quick, correct answer, and a quick answer given without the provision behind it is the one that gets relied on later. The same questions come back from different people, and the answer given last time is in someone's email. How Justis handles it: Ask Justis the question as the business put it. It searches the Indian law collection of Acts, rules, regulator circulars and judgments, answers in plain language, and cites the provision or document for each point, including the company's own policies and contracts in the matter. It marks what depends on facts it does not have and what is a judgment for you, and can turn the answer into a short note for the business in your team's format. Example output: - Question: Can a 14-day free trial convert automatically into a paid monthly plan charged to the saved card? - Consumer law: The CCPA's dark patterns guidelines of 2023 list the subscription trap: cancellation must be easy and the conversion disclosed clearly before the trial starts - Card payments: RBI's e-mandate framework for recurring card payments: registration with additional factor authentication, and a pre-debit notice at least 24 hours before each charge - Company policy: The refund policy in this matter does not cover the first paid month; a gap to fix - Deliverable: One-page note for the marketing head with the conditions for launch Prompt to try (Answer the business): Marketing wants to launch a 14-day free trial that converts automatically into a paid monthly plan on the customer's saved card. Tell me what consumer protection law and the RBI rules on recurring payments require, check our refund policy and terms in this matter, and write a one-page note for the marketing head. Sample documents (1): Nilgiri Learn Subscription Terms and Refund Policy. #### DPDP Act readiness Problem: The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules were notified in November 2025, and most of the obligations under the Act apply eighteen months later. In that window the company has to know what personal data it holds and why, rewrite its notices so that consent is informed and specific, put processing terms into every vendor contract, and build a breach process that informs the Data Protection Board and the affected people. The work is spread across the privacy policy, the consent flows, dozens of vendor contracts and the HR systems, and the board wants one answer: what do we have to change, and by when. How Justis handles it: Upload the privacy policy, the consent notices, the vendor contracts and any data map the company has. Justis reads them against the DPDP Act 2023 and the Rules 2025, and returns the gap list: each obligation, what the company has today, what has to change, and the date from which it applies, each cited to the provision. It runs a tabular review of the vendor contracts for processing terms, drafts the revised notice and the data processing addendum, and prepares the memo for the board. Example output: - Documents read: Privacy policy, 4 consent notices, HR policy, 63 vendor contracts - Notice: Current notice bundles consent to marketing with consent to the service: consent under section 6 must be specific - Vendors: 41 vendors process personal data; 29 contracts have no processing terms - Breach: No process to inform the Board and each affected person; the Rules also require a detailed report within 72 hours - Children: Sign-up allows users under 18 with no verifiable parental consent (section 9) - Deliverable: Gap list with dates, revised notice, DPA template and a board memo Prompt to try (DPDP gap list): Read our privacy policy, consent notices and vendor contracts against the DPDP Act 2023 and the DPDP Rules 2025. Give me a gap list with each obligation, what we have today, what must change and the date it applies from, review the vendor contracts for processing terms, and draft a memo for the board. Sample documents (9): Nilgiri Learn Privacy Policy and Consent Notices; Nilgiri Edulabs Personal Data Inventory and Record of Processing (September 2026); Incident Report IR-2026-07 – Exposed storage bucket with student voice recordings and NSAT documents; Nilgiri Learn Data Requests and Privacy Grievance Log (January to August 2026); Clevercast Messaging Services Agreement (executed, bulk SMS and WhatsApp); Orbitly People SaaS Subscription Agreement (vendor's draft); Stratacore Cloud Hosting Services Agreement (executed); Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023; Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 (Gazette notification of 13.11.2025). #### Moving HR onto the Labour Codes Problem: The four Labour Codes came into force on 21 November 2025, replacing twenty-nine central labour laws. The company's appointment letters, salary structures, standing orders and HR policies still cite the old Acts, and some of what they do has changed in substance. The definition of wages is the change that moves money: allowances above half of total remuneration are added back into wages, which changes the base for provident fund, gratuity and bonus. Fixed-term employees now earn gratuity after one year of service. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the appointment letters, salary structures and HR policies against the Code on Wages, the Industrial Relations Code, the Code on Social Security and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code. It lists each place the company's documents cite a repealed Act or conflict with a Code, with the provision. It tests the salary structures against the wages definition, flags the grades where the base will move, and redrafts the appointment letter template and the policies as tracked changes. Example output: - Documents read: 4 appointment letter templates, 12 HR policies, salary structures for 9 grades - Old references: 37 references to repealed Acts, such as the Payment of Gratuity Act and the Industrial Disputes Act - Wages definition: Basic pay is 35% of CTC in grades 1 to 4: allowances above 50% are added back, raising the PF and gratuity base - Fixed-term staff: Contract template excludes gratuity; fixed-term employees now qualify after one year - Deliverable: Gap list by document, grade-wise effect on the wage base in Excel, redlined templates in Word Prompt to try (Labour Codes review): Read our appointment letters, HR policies and salary structures against the four Labour Codes in force from 21 November 2025. List every reference to a repealed Act and every conflict with a Code, test each grade's salary structure against the definition of wages, and redline the templates. Sample documents (1): HR Policy Manual, Appointment Letter Templates and Salary Structure. #### POSH complaints and the Internal Committee Problem: A complaint of sexual harassment reaches the Internal Committee, and from that moment the POSH Act sets the procedure: the complaint within three months of the incident, the inquiry completed within ninety days, the report within ten days of completing it, and the employer's action on its recommendations within sixty days. Internal Committee members are usually not lawyers, and an inquiry that skips a step, such as giving the respondent the complaint and a chance to reply, is the one that is set aside. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the complaint, the reply and the witness statements, including recorded hearings transcribed in English or Hindi, and builds the timeline of the inquiry with every statutory date computed from the documents. It prepares a procedural checklist for the committee, a summary of each party's account with the page it comes from, and a draft of the inquiry report structured around the findings the committee has to make. The findings themselves are the committee's. Example output: - Complaint: Received by the Internal Committee on 04.08.2026, incident of 22.07.2026: within three months - Inquiry: To be completed within 90 days, by 02.11.2026 - Report: Within 10 days of completing the inquiry; if completed on 02.11.2026, by 12.11.2026 - Employer action: Within 60 days of receiving the report; if received 12.11.2026, by 11.01.2027 - Procedure: Copy of the complaint sent to the respondent and the reply are on file; two witness statements not shared with the complainant - Deliverable: Inquiry timeline, procedural checklist, statement summaries and a draft report structure Prompt to try (POSH inquiry): Read the complaint, the reply and the witness statements in this matter. Build the inquiry timeline with every date under the POSH Act computed from the documents, give the Internal Committee a procedural checklist showing what is done and what is missing, and summarise each account with the page it comes from. Sample documents (1): Internal Committee Inquiry Record IC/02/2026 (complaint, reply and witness statements). #### From the business's email to a first draft Problem: Most contracts start as an email: the business has picked a vendor, attached the quote and wants the agreement by Thursday. The email says what the business wants and the quote says what the vendor wants, and they rarely agree on dates, money or who owns the work. Someone in legal has to read both, find what was never decided, and turn it into the company's template before the purchase order goes out. When that is done in a hurry, the vendor's quotation terms become the contract. How Justis handles it: Attach the email and the quote with your services template. Justis reads them together, checks the quote's arithmetic and terms against the template and your internal approval limits, and drafts the agreement and statement of work in Word from your template, with the business's commercial terms filled in. Where the request and the quote conflict, or a decision has not been made, it does not choose for the business: it leaves the point bracketed in the draft and lists the questions for the business owner in a short cover note. Example output: - Request: 120 video lessons from a Kochi studio at ₹32,000 each; PO planned for 05.10.2026 - Arithmetic: Quote total of ₹45,13,200 is wrong: 18% GST on ₹38,40,000 is ₹6,91,200, so the total is ₹45,31,200 - Timeline: 16 weeks from a PO of 05.10.2026 ends 25.01.2027; the business needs all lessons live by 15.12.2026, so the draft carries batch milestones and a delay clause - Ownership: Quote keeps copyright with the studio and gives a 3-year platform licence; the business wants YouTube and school use, so the draft takes an assignment under sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act, raw footage included, with presenter releases - Approvals: 50% advance against the template's 20% cap, and a contract above ₹25,00,000 needs the CFO; neither approval is in the email - Deliverable: First draft services agreement and statement of work in Word, and a cover note with five questions for the Head of Content Prompt to try (Draft from a request): Read the business's email and the vendor's quotation in this matter with our services agreement template. Check the quote's figures and terms against the template and our approval limits, draft the agreement and statement of work in Word on our template with the commercial terms filled in, bracket anything the business has not decided, and write a short cover note listing the questions for the business owner. Sample documents (2): Contract request from the Content team – video lessons from Pixelgram Studios (email thread and quotation); Nilgiri Edulabs Services Agreement (standard template for vendors). #### Redlining a customer's own paper Problem: Large customers send their own contract and expect it signed. A school group's procurement agreement was written for buying furniture or building works, so it carries uncapped liquidated damages, payment on certification and unlimited liability, and sales has promised a start date. Each of those clauses has to be marked up in the customer's own file, with a reason the customer's procurement team will accept, and sales needs to know which points are worth a fight. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the customer's agreement against your sales positions and the law that applies, and redlines the customer's Word file as tracked changes with a comment on each change that explains it in the customer's terms. It gives sales an issues list ordered by commercial weight, with the fallback you can offer on each point and the points that need the General Counsel. Example output: - Agreement: School group's 18-clause procurement agreement for 18,000 student licences, ₹1,26,00,000 a year - Liability: Clause 11 makes the supplier liable for all losses without limit; marked up to 12 months' fees with indirect loss excluded - Downtime: Clause 9 sets liquidated damages of 2% of the annual fee per day with no cap; replaced with service credits capped at 10% of the monthly fee - Payment: Clause 7.2: 90 days after the Society's certification, no interest; marked up to 30 days from invoice - Children's data: Clause 14 makes the supplier the Data Fiduciary and responsible for parents' consent; under sections 8 and 9 of the DPDP Act that duty sits with the school, so the supplier is redrafted as its Data Processor - Also marked: MFN pricing with retrospective refunds (cl. 4), full refund on termination for convenience (cl. 10.1), platform improvements vesting in the customer (cl. 15.1), Lucknow courts only (cl. 18) - Deliverable: Tracked changes with comments on the customer's .docx, and an issues list for the sales owner Prompt to try (Redline customer paper): Review the customer's procurement agreement in this matter against our sales contract positions. Redline the customer's document as tracked changes with a comment explaining each change in terms their procurement team will accept, check the data protection clauses against the DPDP Act 2023, and give me an issues list for the sales owner in order of commercial importance, with the fallback for each point and what needs the General Counsel. Sample documents (2): Vidyanjali Education Society – Master Procurement Agreement for Digital Learning Services (customer's draft); Nilgiri Edulabs Sales Contract Positions (customer paper, Company as supplier). #### Filling a customer's vendor due diligence questionnaire Problem: Before a bank, insurer or large company onboards you as a vendor, it sends its third-party risk questionnaire: thirty questions on identity, ownership, security, data location, insurance and continuity, with a signature at the end. The answers are scattered across the company profile, the security policy and the insurance schedule. A questionnaire filled in a rush is a set of representations the customer will rely on. The dangerous answers are the confident yeses: a certificate that has lapsed, data that is backed up abroad, a notice period the company cannot meet. How Justis handles it: Attach the customer's blank form in Word with your company fact sheet and policies. Justis completes the form item by item from those documents, keeping the customer's layout, and notes the source of each answer. Where the honest answer is No, or the documents disagree with the customer's mandatory requirement, it writes the accurate answer and flags it for you instead of ticking the box. Items the documents do not answer are left marked for the person who knows. Example output: - Form: Bank's 30-item vendor questionnaire, completed in its own Word layout; 23 items answered from the fact sheet and security policy - Certificate: ISO 27001 certificate IN-ISMS-44821 expired on 14.08.2026; answered with the recertification audit of 20.10.2026, not as valid - Data location: Mandatory 'India only' item answered No: production is in Mumbai but backups and disaster recovery are in Singapore - Breach notice: Bank requires notice within 6 hours; the policy commits to customers within 24 hours, so the item is flagged for a decision - Insurance: Cyber cover of ₹5 crore against the bank's minimum of ₹10 crore; flagged - Left open: Date of last DR drill and relationships with bank staff: not in the documents, marked for the CISO and the directors; declaration left for the signatory Prompt to try (Fill the questionnaire): Complete the customer's vendor due diligence questionnaire in this matter from our company fact sheet and information security policy. Fill each item in the form's own layout as tracked changes, note the source for each answer, answer No accurately where we do not meet a mandatory requirement and flag it, and leave anything the documents do not answer marked for the person who should answer it. Then list the flagged items for me. Sample documents (3): Kaveri Small Finance Bank – Third-Party Vendor Due Diligence Questionnaire (blank form TPRM-F-07); Nilgiri Edulabs – Company Profile and Compliance Fact Sheet (for customer due diligence); Nilgiri Edulabs Information Security Policy (summary version for customers). #### A tracker for the legal notices that arrive Problem: Legal notices reach the company through reception, the old registered office, an email inbox and HR. Each one has its own deadline, counted from a different date, and some carry statutory consequences: a cheque notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act gives fifteen days from receipt. When nobody holds one list, the notice that matters most is the one sitting in a forwarded bundle, and a reply goes out after the date it was needed. How Justis handles it: Upload the notices as they arrive and run a tabular review across them. Each row is a notice; the columns are who sent it, who it is addressed to, when it was dated and received, what it demands, the law it invokes and the date the response is due, each cell citing the page. Sort by the due date, export it to Excel for the team, and ask Justis to draft the reply to any notice from the same matter. Example output: - Notices read: 5 received between 22 and 29 September 2026 - First deadline: Former employee's demand: 7 days from receipt on 26.09.2026, so 03.10.2026 - Cheque: Section 138 notice for ₹4,72,000 received 22.09.2026: payment within 15 days of receipt, by 07.10.2026 - Wrong addressee: Trade mark notice addressed to 'Nilgiri Edutech Private Limited' at an office vacated in 2025; dated 15.09.2026, received 29.09.2026, with 30 days counted from its date - Claim to check: Gratuity of ₹1,46,000 claimed on 4 years 2 months' service; the Code on Social Security requires five years for a resignation - Deliverable: Tracker grid with the page in every cell, sorted by due date and exported to Excel Prompt to try (Notice tracker): Run a tabular review of every legal notice in this matter. For each, extract the sender and their advocate, the party it is addressed to and whether that is our correct name and address, the date of the notice and the date we received it, the demand and amount, the statute or contract clause invoked, and the date by which we must respond, computed from the notice's own terms. Cite the page for every cell and sort by the response date. Opens in: Tabular Review, one column per question (Sender, Addressed to, Correctly addressed, Notice date, Received on, Amount claimed, Other demands, Law invoked, Response due). Sample documents (5): Demand notice from a former employee – salary, leave encashment and gratuity (₹2,55,500); Legal notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Printwave Graphics Pvt. Ltd. (cheque of ₹4,72,000); Legal notice from a parent – refund of an auto-renewed annual plan and compensation (₹54,499); Landlord's notice – Pune office rent arrears of ₹8,55,000 and threatened termination; Cease and desist notice – "NEELGIRI" trade mark (Neelgiri Tutors Pvt. Ltd.). #### Answering a regulator's request for information Problem: A regulator writes asking seven questions about how the company sells subscriptions, with fifteen days to answer under the signature of an authorised officer. The answers sit with product, support and payments, and their figures do not always agree. The reply is the first thing the regulator will read about the company. Every number in it has to reconcile, every document has to be the version that applied, and a question the company cannot answer has to be said plainly rather than filled. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the notice, the company's terms and the data the teams send, maps each question to the material that answers it, and checks the figures against each other before anything is drafted. It drafts the reply in your format with an annexure index, marks the questions the records cannot answer, and writes a separate internal note on the exposure the answers reveal, with the provisions behind it. Nothing is sent; the reply goes to the signing officer as a draft. Example output: - Notice: Preliminary inquiry under section 19(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019: 7 questions for 01.01.2026 to 31.08.2026, reply within 15 days of receipt on 23.09.2026, so by 08.10.2026 - Mapped: Six questions answered from the terms (version 2.4) and the data pack; one cannot be - Not answerable: Q5, consumers charged after asking to cancel: payments and support records are not linked; 312 refunds of ₹4,11,860 are known, the full count is not - Figures: Complaints by month add up to 1,214; the summary says 1,412. To be reconciled before the reply is signed - Exposure: No in-app cancellation, five screens and two emails to cancel, and a 'your child will lose all progress' prompt: the subscription trap and confirm shaming patterns in the 2023 dark patterns guidelines - Deliverable: Draft reply with annexure index for the signing officer, and an internal risk note for the General Counsel Prompt to try (Regulator reply): Read the regulator's notice in this matter with our subscription terms and the data pack from the product, support and payments teams. Map each question to the documents and figures that answer it, check the figures against each other and list any that do not reconcile, draft the reply with an annexure index for the signing officer, mark any question the records cannot answer, and write a separate internal note on the legal exposure with the provisions behind it. Sample documents (3): Central Consumer Protection Authority – notice seeking information on subscription and cancellation practices (preliminary inquiry); Nilgiri Learn – subscription, renewal, complaint and cancellation data (01.01.2026 to 31.08.2026); Nilgiri Learn Subscription Terms and Refund Policy. Questions: - Q: Can procurement or HR send contracts straight to it? A: They can run a review in a shared workspace if you give them access, using the playbook your team has set. The positions stay with legal, and anything outside the playbook is marked for a lawyer rather than decided. - Q: Does it keep up with new rules such as the DPDP Rules? A: It searches the Indian law collection of Acts, rules and regulator material, and cites the provision for every point. Where a rule is recent or its application is unsettled, it says so rather than presenting the point as settled. - Q: Can it read contracts that were signed on paper and scanned? A: Yes. Scanned contracts go through OCR first, including Hindi, and the associate tells you when it is reading a scan so you know transcription errors are possible. Where a page is illegible it says so instead of guessing. - Q: Is it suitable for POSH matters? A: It helps the Internal Committee with the timeline, the procedure and the record, and drafts the report structure. Findings and recommendations are the committee's, and access to the matter can be limited to its members. - Q: Can the answer to one person's question be reused? A: Yes. Answers, notes and memos stay in the matter workspace, and a workflow or skill saved by your team gives the next person the same method and format. - Q: What should an in-house team try first? A: A playbook review of a vendor agreement you have already negotiated. Set five positions, run the vendor's first draft through it, and compare the markup with the one you sent. It is the fastest way to see where it helps and where you still want to look yourself. ### How property lawyers use Justis AI URL: https://askjustis.com/use-cases/real-estate Property work is paper work in the literal sense. A title search is thirty years of sale deeds, mutation entries, encumbrance certificates, khata extracts and conversion orders, most of them scanned, some in Hindi or a regional language. The defect that matters is usually a missing link, not a bad one: a mutation never recorded, a gift deed executed on an unregistered power of attorney, a mortgage released in part. Justis reads the whole file with you. You upload the documents to a project once, and it reads every page, scans included, then builds the chain, the encumbrance list, the stamp duty working or the lease grid the way a careful associate would. Every entry carries the document and page it came from, and anything it could not confirm on the record is marked as a gap rather than filled in. Try this first: Take a property whose title you have already certified. Upload the title documents to a project and ask for the chain of title with a source for each link and every break flagged. Compare it with your own report. That shows you, on a file you know, how far to rely on it for the next one. #### Tracing the chain of title Problem: A buyer or a lender wants a title opinion covering thirty years, and the file arrives as sixty scanned documents in no particular order. Building the chain by hand means reading every deed for the schedule, the extent, the parties and the recital of how the vendor came to own the land, then checking that each recital matches the deed before it. The defects hide in the joins. The extent shrinks by four guntas between two deeds with no explanation, a transfer rests on a general power of attorney rather than a registered conveyance, or the revenue record still shows an owner from two transfers back. How Justis handles it: Justis reads every deed, mutation entry and extract in the project, runs OCR on the scans and tells you when it is reading one, and lays out the chain in order: each transfer with the parties, the date, the registration details, the extent and the document and page it comes from. It checks each link against the next and flags what does not reconcile: a vendor who does not appear as the purchaser in the previous deed, a schedule or extent that changes, an unregistered instrument where section 17 of the Registration Act requires registration, and a mutation that was never made. The chain and the list of requisitions come back in Word. Example output: - Documents read: 58 files, 612 pages, 41 scanned documents read by OCR - Chain: 9 transfers from the 1996 grant to the 2019 sale, each with the deed and page - Break: 2013 gift deed executed by an attorney under an unregistered GPA (Gift deed, p. 3); no registered conveyance to the donor - Does not reconcile: Extent 2 acres 10 guntas in the 2004 deed, 2 acres 6 guntas in the 2019 deed; no rectification on file - Revenue record: RTC still shows the 2009 holder; 2016 mutation never recorded - Deliverable: Chain of title and list of requisitions in Word Prompt to try (Chain of title): Read every title document in this matter and build the chain of title for the last thirty years. For each transfer give the parties, date, registration details, extent and the document and page. Flag every break, every unregistered instrument that needed registration, every change in extent and every missing mutation, and list the requisitions to raise with the seller. Sample documents (4): Gift deed of 2013 to Sri Basava Family Trust, Hosahalli; Sale deed of 2019 (Basava Family Trust to Prakash Hegde), Hosahalli; Sale deed of 2004 (Narayanappa to Venkatesh Gowda), Hosahalli; Encumbrance certificates, RTC and mutation extract, Hosahalli. #### Encumbrances, charges and pending litigation Problem: The encumbrance certificate is the start of the search, not the end of it. It shows registered transactions, but an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds under section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act may never appear on it, and a partial release deed is easy to read as a full one. Pending suits matter just as much. A sale made while a suit concerning the property is pending is subject to its result under the doctrine of lis pendens in section 52 of the Act, so a partition suit filed by a family member can bind the buyer who never heard of it. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the encumbrance certificates, the search reports you upload, the bank's sanction and release letters and any court papers, and lists every charge with its creation, its release and what remains. It marks the years the certificates do not cover and the charges shown in a sanction letter that the certificate does not show. For litigation, it reads the plaints and orders on file, identifies the suits that concern this property, and states what each could do to the title if it succeeds. The result is a ranked list of encumbrances, each with the document behind it. Example output: - Certificates read: EC for 1996 to 2026; no certificate for 2001 to 2003 - Registered charge: 2021 mortgage to a bank for ₹2.4 crore; release deed of 2024 covers Sy. No. 41/2 only (Release deed, p. 2) - Not on the EC: Sanction letter of 2018 refers to deposit of title deeds; no memorandum registered, no release on file - Litigation: Partition suit of 2023 by the donor's brother over the trust share; buyer bound by the result under s.52 TPA - Deliverable: Encumbrance schedule and requisitions, ranked by risk Prompt to try (Encumbrance schedule): Read the encumbrance certificates, bank letters and court papers in this matter. List every charge with its creation, release and what remains outstanding, mark any years the certificates do not cover and any charge referred to elsewhere that the certificates do not show, and tell me which pending suits concern this property and what could do to the title. Sample documents (4): Encumbrance certificates, RTC and mutation extract, Hosahalli; Southern Commerce Bank: 2018 sanction letter and 2024 partial release deed; Plaint in O.S. No. 214/2023 (partition suit), Devanahalli; Sale deed of 2019 (Basava Family Trust to Prakash Hegde), Hosahalli. #### Stamp duty and registration before execution Problem: Stamp duty is a state question. The article that applies, the rate, the basis of valuation and the concessions differ between states, and a single transaction can involve an agreement for sale, a power of attorney, a sale deed and a rectification, each stamped under a different article. Getting it wrong has consequences beyond the deficit. An instrument that is not duly stamped can be impounded and is not admissible in evidence until the duty and penalty are paid, and a document that needs registration but is not registered does not affect the property under section 49 of the Registration Act. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the draft instruments and the valuation papers you upload, identifies which instruments need registration and which article of the applicable state stamp schedule governs each, and sets out the duty working with the rate and the value it is charged on. It tells you where the state schedule you uploaded or cited is the source, so the working can be checked. It also checks the drafts for the registration points that cause rejections at the sub-registrar's office: the schedule and boundaries, the extent in words and figures, the presentation period under section 23 and the documents to annex. Example output: - Agreement for sale: Possession to pass under it: stamped as a conveyance in many states, such as Maharashtra; registration required - Power of attorney: In favour of the developer, with power to sell: stamped under the state article for such powers - Sale deed: Duty on the higher of consideration and guidance value; duty paid on the agreement adjusted where the state allows - Presentation: Executed 20.08.2026: to be presented within four months under s.23 Registration Act - Flag: Schedule in the draft omits the eastern boundary given in the 2019 deed - Deliverable: Stamp duty and registration note in Word, with the working shown Prompt to try (Stamp duty working): Read the draft instruments in this matter. For each, tell me whether it must be registered, which article of the state stamp schedule applies, and the duty payable on what value, with the working shown. Then check each draft for the schedule, boundaries and extent against the title deeds and list anything the sub-registrar is likely to object to. Sample documents (3): Agreement for sale with possession, Hosahalli (executed 20.08.2026); Sale deed of 2019 (Basava Family Trust to Prakash Hegde), Hosahalli; Encumbrance certificates, RTC and mutation extract, Hosahalli. #### Agreements for sale against your positions Problem: The developer's standard agreement for sale runs to forty pages, and the buyer's lawyer has a day to mark it up. The clauses that matter are predictable: the possession date and what happens if it slips, the carpet area and how it is measured, the payment plan, the defect liability period and the cancellation deductions. For a registered RERA project the agreement must follow the form in the state rules, so a clause that departs from it in the promoter's favour is a point to push back on, not a matter of taste. How Justis handles it: Write your negotiating positions down once as a playbook: possession, delay interest, carpet area, defect liability, cancellation, and the rest. Justis reads each agreement against it, flags every clause that departs from your position and from the rights the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 gives the allottee, and proposes the change. The mark-up comes back as tracked changes in the Word document, with a short issues list explaining each change so the client or the developer's counsel can follow it. Example output: - Agreement: Developer's standard form, 42 pages, 3 BHK in a registered project - Possession: Clause 7 allows a 12-month grace period beyond the date in the RERA registration; flagged - Delay: Clause 7.4 caps delay compensation at ₹5 per sq ft a month; inconsistent with interest under s.18 RERA - Defect liability: Clause 14 gives 1 year; s.14(3) RERA provides 5 years from possession - Cancellation: Forfeiture of 20% of the price; playbook position is the booking amount only - Deliverable: Tracked-changes mark-up and issues list in Word Prompt to try (Mark up the agreement): Review this agreement for sale against our buyer-side playbook and against the allottee's rights under RERA and the state rules. Flag every clause that departs from our position, propose the change as a tracked edit, and give me a short issues list explaining each one. Sample documents (2): Developer's standard agreement for sale, Skyline Orchid Phase II (3 BHK, draft); Firm playbook: buyer-side apartment agreements and landowner-side JDAs. #### RERA complaints and appeals Problem: A flat promised for March 2024 has still not been handed over, and the buyer wants either the money back with interest or possession with interest for the delay. Section 18 of RERA gives both routes, but the complaint has to be built from the agreement, the registration details, the payment receipts and two years of correspondence. When the order comes, the losing side has sixty days to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 44, and a promoter who appeals must first deposit the amount directed under section 43(5). How Justis handles it: Justis reads the agreement, the receipts, the demand letters and the correspondence, builds the payment schedule and the delay period with the page for each figure, and drafts the complaint under section 31 with the relief under section 18: refund with interest, or interest for every month of delay until possession, at the rate the state rules prescribe. When an order arrives, it reads the order against the record, computes the last date to appeal, and drafts the grounds for whichever side you act for. Example output: - Agreement: Registered agreement of 14.06.2021; possession promised by 31.03.2024 - Paid: ₹86.4 lakh in 11 instalments, each tied to a receipt and page - Delay: 30 months to September 2026 and continuing - Relief: Refund with interest at the state-prescribed rate under s.18(1), or interest for delay if the buyer stays - Appeal clock: Order copy received 03.09.2026: 60 days under s.44(2) ends Monday 2 November 2026 - Deliverable: Complaint with annexure index and payment schedule, in Word Prompt to try (RERA complaint): Read the agreement, receipts and correspondence in this matter. Build the payment schedule and the delay period with a source for each figure, set out the relief available under section 18 of RERA, and draft the complaint under section 31 with the annexure index. Sample documents (2): Registered agreement for sale of 14.06.2021, Skyline Orchid flat B-1204; Payment receipts and correspondence, Skyline Orchid flat B-1204 (2021-2026). #### Lease portfolios and lease abstracts Problem: A client acquiring a building, or taking over a retail chain, inherits forty leases on forty different templates. Someone has to pull out the rent, the escalation, the lock-in, the term, the renewal option, the assignment clause and the security deposit from every one of them. The legal points are in the same pile. A lease for more than a year must be made by registered instrument under section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, and an unregistered one gives a much weaker position than the tenant believes. How Justis handles it: Tabular review asks the same questions of every lease in the matter and returns a grid: one row per lease, one column per term, each cell with the clause and page it came from. You can add a column mid-review and export the grid to Excel. Justis flags the leases that need attention: unregistered leases over a year, assignment or change-of-control clauses the transaction will trigger, lock-ins that end before the deal closes, and escalations that do not match the rent actually being paid. Example output: - Leases read: 38 leases, 1,140 pages, 12 scanned - Columns: Tenant, term, rent, escalation, lock-in, renewal, assignment, deposit, registration - Unregistered: 4 leases of 5 years or more with no registration endorsement - Change of control: 9 leases need landlord consent on a share transfer of the tenant - Mismatch: Unit 4B: escalation of 15% every 3 years in the lease, rent roll shows no escalation since 2022 - Deliverable: Lease grid in Excel with cited cells, and an exceptions memo in Word Prompt to try (Lease grid): Review every lease in this matter and build a grid with the tenant, term, rent, escalation, lock-in, renewal, assignment and change-of-control clause, security deposit and registration status, citing the clause and page for each cell. Then list the leases that need attention and why. Sample documents (3): Commercial lease of Unit 4B, Hebbal Commercial Centre (2019); Leave and licence agreement, Unit G2, Hebbal Commercial Centre (2026); Rent roll, Hebbal Commercial Centre (September 2026). #### Joint development agreements Problem: A landowner is offered a joint development agreement: land in exchange for a share of the built-up area. The document decides who controls the approvals, what happens if the developer stalls, and whether the power of attorney the owner signs can be used to sell the owner's share. Under RERA the landowner who shares in the built area can be treated as a promoter, with obligations to allottees, and the stamp duty on the agreement and the power of attorney depends on the state and on how much control passes. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the draft agreement, the power of attorney and the title file, and sets out the commercial and legal terms in one note: the sharing ratio, the timelines, the approvals, the default and termination rights, the scope of the power of attorney and the landowner's exposure as a promoter. Against your landowner-side or developer-side playbook, it marks the clauses to change and drafts the revisions as tracked changes, including a power of attorney limited to the developer's share. Example output: - Agreement: Draft JDA for 1.8 acres; 40:60 sharing of saleable area, owner to developer - Timeline: Plan sanction in 12 months, completion in 48; no consequence stated for missing either - Power of attorney: Covers sale of all units, including the owner's 40%; flagged - RERA: Owner's share to be sold by the owner: owner likely a promoter for those units - Termination: No right for the owner to terminate on the developer's default; playbook requires one - Deliverable: Term note, issues list and tracked-changes JDA in Word Prompt to try (Review the JDA): We act for the landowner. Read this joint development agreement and the draft power of attorney against the title file and our playbook. Summarise the sharing, timelines, approvals and default rights, flag the owner's exposure under RERA, and mark up the agreement and the power of attorney as tracked changes. Sample documents (2): Draft joint development agreement and power of attorney, Bettenahalli (developer's draft); Firm playbook: buyer-side apartment agreements and landowner-side JDAs. #### A title report from the title bundle Problem: The buyer's lender wants a title report before it will sanction the home loan, and the seller has handed over a certified copy of the BDA sale deed, a registered partition deed, an encumbrance certificate, a khata certificate and four tax receipts. The report has to say who owns the site today, how they came to own it, what stands against it and what must be cured before registration. The bundle rarely says what is missing. A partition between two brothers that recites them as the only heirs of their mother says nothing about a sister, and an encumbrance certificate that starts in 1998 says nothing about the nine years of the lease-cum-sale period before it. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the deeds, the search report, the encumbrance certificate and the khata papers, and drafts the title report in your format: the documents examined, the flow of title from the allotment to the present owner, the encumbrances, the revenue and tax position, and the opinion with its conditions. Every statement in the flow of title carries the document and page. It flags what the bundle cannot support: an heir left out of a succession, a khata in one name where the deed vests the property in two, a registered agreement with a third party that was never cancelled, a period the search does not cover and an original deed that is not with the seller. The requisitions come back as a numbered list for the seller. Example output: - Flow of title: BDA allotment 1989, absolute sale deed 1998 to Saraswathamma, her death intestate in 2009, partition between two sons in 2011 - Break: Partition deed recites the sons as the only heirs; the search report names a sister, Latha Prakash, who did not join. Under s.15 of the Hindu Succession Act she takes an equal share of her mother's property - Revenue record: E-khata in Ravi Shankar Rao's name alone, though the partition deed vests the site in both brothers jointly - Encumbrance: Registered agreement of sale of 2017 to Manjunath Hegde for ₹1.10 crore, no cancellation deed on the EC - Gaps: Search covers 1998 to 2026 only; original 1998 deed not produced; 2026-27 property tax unpaid - Deliverable: Title report with opinion, conditions and requisitions, in Word Prompt to try (Title report): We act for the purchasers of Site No. 214, J.P. Nagar VII Phase. Read the title documents, search report, encumbrance certificate and khata papers in this matter and draft a title report: documents examined, flow of title with the document and page for each step, encumbrances, revenue and tax position, and an opinion with conditions. Flag every break in title, every person whose share or consent is missing, every uncancelled transaction and every period not searched, and list the requisitions to raise with the seller. Sample documents (4): Sub-Registrar search report and encumbrance certificate, Site No. 214 (1998-2026); Partition deed of 2011 between Ravi Shankar Rao and Suresh Rao, Site No. 214; BDA absolute sale deed of 1998, Site No. 214, J.P. Nagar 7th Phase; E-khata certificate, khata register extract and tax receipts, Site No. 214. #### Drafting the sale deed from the term sheet Problem: The broker's term sheet arrives with the parties, the price, the payment plan and a line asking purchasers' counsel to prepare the deed. Drafting from it alone is how errors reach the sub-registrar: the seller named is whoever the broker dealt with, the boundaries are as the seller remembers them, and a cash payment sits in the payment table as if it were routine. The deed has to match the title papers, not the term sheet: the vendors must be everyone in whom title is vested, the schedule must follow the previous deeds, and the recitals must explain how each vendor came to own the property. How Justis handles it: Justis drafts the sale deed in Word from the term sheet and the title documents together: parties, recitals tracing title, consideration and payment table, covenants for title and indemnity, possession, and the schedule taken from the root deed. Where the term sheet and the title papers disagree, the draft follows the papers and the covering note says why. The covering note lists what has to be settled before execution: vendors or confirming parties to be added, payments that should not be made in cash, statements in the term sheet the record contradicts, and the value on which stamp duty will be charged. Example output: - Vendors: Term sheet names Ravi Shankar Rao alone; partition deed vests the site in him and Suresh Rao jointly, and their sister has a share: all three to join, or her release deed first - Schedule: Term sheet gives East: Site 213, West: Site 215; the BDA deed and the partition deed say the reverse. Draft follows the deeds - Cash: ₹5 lakh token paid in cash on 02.09.2026: a cash receipt of ₹2 lakh or more is barred under the Income-tax Act; refund and repay by bank transfer - Prior agreement: Term sheet says there is none; the EC shows a registered 2017 agreement of sale to Manjunath Hegde. Cancellation deed or his release to be a condition - Stamp duty: Consideration ₹1.92 crore against guidance value ₹2.04 crore: duty on the higher figure - Deliverable: Draft sale deed and a covering note of points to settle, in Word Prompt to try (Draft the sale deed): Draft the sale deed for Site No. 214, J.P. Nagar VII Phase from the broker's term sheet and the title documents in this matter. Take the vendors, recitals and schedule from the title papers, not the term sheet, and include the consideration and payment table, covenants for title, indemnity and possession. Then give me a covering note listing every point where the term sheet conflicts with the record and what must be settled before execution. Sample documents (4): Agreed terms for the sale of Site No. 214, J.P. Nagar 7th Phase (broker's term sheet); Partition deed of 2011 between Ravi Shankar Rao and Suresh Rao, Site No. 214; BDA absolute sale deed of 1998, Site No. 214, J.P. Nagar 7th Phase; Sub-Registrar search report and encumbrance certificate, Site No. 214 (1998-2026). #### Marking up a leave and licence agreement for the licensee Problem: A client relocating to Mumbai has agreed the rent on a call, and the owner's broker has sent an eleven-month leave and licence agreement on his own template. The client has agreed terms the draft does not reflect, and the draft carries clauses that would not survive a dispute. In Maharashtra a leave and licence agreement must be in writing and registered under section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999, which puts the responsibility for registration on the landlord. The same Act stops a landlord cutting off an essential supply without just cause, and fixes what a licensee who stays on must pay. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the draft against the client's instructions and the law, marks up the Word document with tracked changes, and adds a comment on each change saying whether it comes from the agreed terms or from the statute. It also lists what the draft leaves out that the client asked for, such as a renewal option or protection if the flat is sold, with proposed wording, so the reply to the broker can go in one round. Example output: - Deposit: Clause 3: ₹6 lakh, ten months' fee, refund 'subject to such deductions as the Licensor may decide'; changed to ₹1.8 lakh, refund on handover, itemised deductions - Lock-in: Clause 2 binds the licensee for 11 months while the licensor may end it on 30 days' notice; changed to a mutual 6-month lock-in - Escalation: Clause 4 raises the fee 10% from the seventh month; client agreed ₹60,000 for the whole term - Essential supply: Clause 9 lets the licensor cut electricity and water for late payment; deleted, s.29 Maharashtra Rent Control Act - Registration: Clause 12 makes the licensee solely responsible; s.55(2) puts it on the landlord. Costs split 50:50 as agreed - Holding over: Clause 14: ₹10,000 a day; reduced to the measure in s.24 of the Act - Deliverable: Tracked-changes agreement with comments, and a short note for the client Prompt to try (Mark up the licence): We act for the licensee. Review the licensor's draft leave and licence agreement against the client's e-mail of instructions and the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999. Mark up the agreement as tracked changes with a comment on each change saying whether it comes from the agreed terms or the statute, add the protections the client asked for that the draft omits, and give me a short note for the client on the points that matter. Sample documents (2): Leave and licence agreement, Flat 1702, Sarovar Heights, Powai (licensor's draft); Licensee's instructions and positions, Flat 1702, Powai (e-mail to counsel). #### Filling the society's transfer form from the deed Problem: Once a resale is registered, the buyers still have to be admitted to the housing society. The society's form asks for the seller's share certificate and distinctive numbers, the area in the society's records, the dues, the nominee, the buyers' details and the registration particulars, and the managing committee will refuse a form that does not match its register. The data is spread over the registered agreement, the share certificate, the society's statement of dues and an intake sheet filled in a hurry, and the answers do not always agree. How Justis handles it: Justis fills the society's Word form from those documents, field by field, and returns it as a completed document with each entry taken from the record and the source noted. Where two documents disagree it uses the society's own record for the society's fields and flags the conflict; where nothing on file answers a field it leaves the field blank and says what is needed. It does not submit anything. The completed form and a short list of points to resolve go to the parties for signature. Example output: - Share certificate: Agreement recites certificate No. 32, shares 156 to 160; the certificate itself is No. 23, shares 111 to 115. Form filled from the certificate; agreement to be rectified or explained - Dues: Seller says no dues; society's statement shows ₹50,640 (maintenance, sinking and repair funds) to be cleared before transfer - Area: Agreement: 742 sq ft carpet; society register: 780 sq ft built-up. Both entered with their basis - Nominee: Registered nominee, the seller's husband, died in 2022; noted in A7 - Missing: Priya Bapat's PAN and both buyers' occupations not on file; fields left blank and flagged - Deliverable: Completed form in Word with a list of points to resolve Prompt to try (Fill the society form): Fill the society's blank application for NOC and transfer of shares for Flat A-503 from the registered agreement for sale, the share certificate and statement of dues, and the intake sheet in this matter. Fill each field from the record and note the source, use the society's own record where documents disagree and flag the conflict, leave blank anything the documents do not answer, and give me a list of points to resolve before signature. Sample documents (4): Society's blank form — application for NOC and transfer of share and membership (Flat A-503); Registered agreement for sale (resale) of Flat A-503, Sahyadri Park, Baner (14.09.2026); Share certificate and society statement of dues, Flat A-503, Sahyadri Park; Client intake sheet for the society transfer, Flat A-503 (seller and buyers). #### Allottee agreements across a project Problem: A fund looking at a stalled tower, or a lender asked to finance its completion, needs to know what the promoter has promised to each allottee. Each agreement was signed in a different year on a different template: some follow the form in the state rules, some an older developer template, and a few were never registered. The terms that decide the exposure are the same in every file: the carpet area sold, how much was taken before the agreement, the possession date, the delay compensation, the cancellation deduction and whether the agreement was registered. How Justis handles it: Tabular review asks those questions of every agreement in the matter and returns one row per flat, each cell citing the clause and page. Agreements that depart from RERA stand out across the grid: an area given only as super built-up, an advance above the ten per cent that section 13 allows before a registered agreement, a possession date later than the one declared to the Authority, a capped delay compensation. The grid exports to Excel for the deal team, and the exceptions become the list of claims the promoter faces. Example output: - Agreements read: 4 agreements in Tower C, Lakeview Meadows, one row each - Area: C-0507 sold on 1,420 sq ft super built-up with no carpet area stated - Advance: C-0911: 15% (₹14.79 lakh) taken in January 2023, three months before the agreement; above the 10% limit in s.13(1) RERA - Possession: C-1203 promises 31.12.2026, eighteen months after the completion date declared to K-RERA - Delay and cancellation: C-0507 caps delay compensation at ₹5 per sq ft a month and forfeits 20%; C-1203 deducts 15% - Registration: C-1203 notarised only, not registered Prompt to try (Allottee grid): Review every allottee agreement in this matter and build a grid with the allottee and flat, carpet area, the amount paid before the agreement as a percentage of the price, the possession date, the delay compensation clause, the cancellation deduction and the registration details, citing the clause and page for each cell. Then list the agreements that depart from RERA or the state rules and why. Opens in: Tabular Review, one column per question (Allottee and flat, Carpet area (sq ft), Total price, Paid before agreement, Paid before agreement (% of price), Possession date, Delay compensation, Cancellation deduction, Registered). Sample documents (4): Allottee agreement, Lakeview Meadows Tower C, Flat C-0204 (Deepa Iyer, registered 2023); Allottee agreement, Lakeview Meadows Tower C, Flat C-0507 (Harish Kamath, registered 2023); Allottee agreement, Lakeview Meadows Tower C, Flat C-0911 (Irfan, registered 2023); Allottee agreement, Lakeview Meadows Tower C, Flat C-1203 (Kavitha Shenoy, notarised 2023). #### Replying to a RERA complaint for the promoter Problem: An allottee has filed a complaint with the Authority claiming nineteen months of delay interest, possession without paying the last instalment and compensation for mental agony. The reply is due in three weeks, and the promoter's instructions are to deny any delay because the Authority extended the project's registration. The reply has to be accurate about what the record shows, including the points that do not help the promoter. A defence the Authority will reject on its first reading costs credibility on the points the promoter can win. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the complaint, the agreement and the promoter's file, and sets each allegation against the record with the page: the possession date the agreement actually gives, the date of the occupancy certificate, the offer of possession, the demands and the allottee's refusal. It computes the delay the record supports, the amounts outstanding and the interest each side owes. It drafts the reply in Word, para-wise, and a separate note to the client on where the promoter is exposed and which instructions the reply should not follow, so the client decides with the risk in front of it. Example output: - Delay period: Complaint counts from 01.01.2025 on the brochure; the agreement says 30.06.2025. Delay runs to the offer of possession on 15.03.2026: 8½ months, not 19 - Extension: K-RERA's s.6 extension to 31.12.2025 was expressly without prejudice to s.18; not a defence to delay interest on its own - Occupancy: Complaint says no OC; OC dated 02.03.2026 and offer of possession delivered 17.03.2026 - Allottees' default: Final instalment ₹11.84 lakh unpaid after two demands: obligations under s.19(6), (7) and (10) - Compensation: ₹5 lakh for mental agony is for the adjudicating officer under s.71, not the Authority - Exposure: 15% taken before the agreement, above s.13(1); not raised by the complainants, flagged to the client - Deliverable: Para-wise reply and a risk note to the client, in Word Prompt to try (Reply to the complaint): We act for the promoter. Read the complaint, the allottees' agreement for Flat C-0911 and the promoter's file in this matter. Set each allegation against the record with the page, compute the delay period and the amounts each side owes, and draft a para-wise reply to the Authority. Then give me a separate note to the client on where the promoter is exposed and which of its instructions the reply should not follow, and why. Sample documents (3): Complaint before K-RERA by the allottees of Flat C-0911, Lakeview Meadows (2026); Promoter's record for the reply, Lakeview Meadows Tower C (extension order, OC, possession offer, demand letters, account); Allottee agreement, Lakeview Meadows Tower C, Flat C-0911 (Irfan, registered 2023). Questions: - Q: Can it read deeds in regional languages? A: It reads English and Hindi reliably, including scanned documents through OCR. For deeds in other Indian languages, upload the translation or the typed copy alongside the original and it will work from both, and it tells you which one each entry relies on. - Q: Does it check the land records portal or the sub-registrar's index? A: No. It works from the documents you upload: encumbrance certificates, extracts, mutation entries and search reports. It tells you which records are missing so you can obtain them. - Q: Does it know each state's stamp duty rates? A: Stamp duty is set by each state and changes often, so it names the article it relies on and shows the working. Upload the current schedule or cite the notification and it will compute from that, and it says when it is unsure the rate is current. - Q: Can it prepare the sale deed? A: Yes. It drafts the sale deed, agreement for sale, power of attorney or release deed in Word from the title file and the agreed terms, with the schedule taken from the deeds. You settle the draft and the parties execute and register it. - Q: Is client property data kept confidential? A: Documents and chats are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. - Q: What should a property lawyer try first? A: The chain of title on a property you have already certified. Upload the title documents, ask for the chain with a source for each link and every break flagged, and compare it with your report. It is the quickest way to see where it helps and where you still want to look yourself. ### How tax lawyers use Justis AI URL: https://askjustis.com/use-cases/tax Tax work is reading exact text under time pressure. A show cause notice arrives with thirty days to reply, the allegation rests on a return the client filed three years ago, and the answer turns on the section as it stood for that period, a circular issued since, and a ruling that settled the point in one High Court but not in another. Since 1 April 2026 there is also the question of which Act governs: the Income-tax Act 2025 for the current tax year, the 1961 Act for many notices still arising for earlier years. Justis reads the notice with the client's papers. You upload the notice, the returns, the ledgers and the invoices to a project, and it sets each allegation against what the record shows, finds the provision and the authority that decide the point, and drafts the reply or the opinion in your format. Every figure carries the document and line it came from, and where the law is unsettled it says so instead of choosing a side for you. Try this first: Take a notice you have already replied to. Upload the notice and the papers you relied on, and ask for a point-by-point analysis with the provision and the record behind each answer. Compare it with the reply you filed. On a matter you know, you will see quickly where it saves time and where you still want your own read. #### Replying to a GST show cause notice Problem: A show cause notice under section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act runs to twenty pages and a set of annexed spreadsheets. Each allegation has to be met from the record: the invoice, the return, the ledger entry and the provision it satisfies. For periods from 2024-25 onwards the notice will usually be under section 74A instead, with its own time limits. The first questions are often the strongest. Is the notice within time for the section invoked? Does a section 74 notice actually allege fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression with particulars, or does it simply assert them to reach the longer period? How Justis handles it: Justis reads the notice and its annexures, lists every allegation and the amount attached to it, and sets each one against the invoices, returns and ledgers in the project with the document and page or line. It checks the notice for jurisdiction and limitation under the section invoked, and whether the extended period is properly pleaded. It then drafts the reply in Word, preliminary objections first, each ground cited to the provision, the notification or circular and the ruling that supports it, with the record references in the margin. Example output: - Notice: Section 74 SCN dated 12.03.2026 for FY 2022-23, demand of ₹1.36 crore with interest and penalty - Allegations: 4: ITC on cancelled suppliers, ITC beyond s.16(4) time limit, short payment on rent, e-way bill mismatch - Record: Supplier registrations active on every invoice date; tax reflected in GSTR-2B (Ledger, lines 212 to 260) - Time limit: ITC for FY 2022-23 claimed in the October 2023 return, within the s.16(4) limit of 30 November 2023 - Extended period: No particulars of fraud or suppression; s.74 not available, demand if any lies under s.73 - Deliverable: Reply in Word with preliminary objections, grounds and record references Prompt to try (Reply to the SCN): Read this show cause notice and its annexures against the returns, ledgers and invoices in this matter. List every allegation with the amount, set out what the record shows for each with the page or line, check whether the notice is within time and whether the extended period is properly invoked, and draft the reply. Sample documents (4): GST show cause notice under section 74 with DRC-01 summary (Ketaki Polymers, FY 2022-23); Purchase register and ITC ledger extract, FY 2022-23 (Ketaki Polymers); GSTR-2B statements for FY 2022-23, consolidated extract (Ketaki Polymers); CBIC Circular No. 185/17/2022-GST (27.12.2022) — section 75(2) and the section 73 time limit. #### Reconciling input tax credit against GSTR-2B Problem: Most ITC disputes come down to a reconciliation: the purchase register against GSTR-2B, supplier by supplier and invoice by invoice. It is two days of spreadsheet work before the legal argument can start, and the argument depends on getting it right. The conditions in section 16(2) are cumulative, including the requirement that the invoice appear in the statement under section 16(2)(aa), so a mismatch on a single invoice can decide whether a credit is defensible. How Justis handles it: Upload the purchase register, the GSTR-2B exports and the ledger. Justis matches them invoice by invoice and returns a grid: matched, missing from 2B, mismatched in value or tax, supplier cancelled, or claimed late, each with the line on both sides. It totals the exposure by category, says which condition in section 16 each unmatched credit fails, and exports the grid to Excel as the annexure to the reply. Example output: - Read: Purchase register of 4,812 lines, 12 months of GSTR-2B, ITC ledger - Matched: 4,655 invoices, ₹3.92 crore of credit - Not in 2B: 118 invoices, ₹21.4 lakh; 96 of them from 3 suppliers who filed late - Value mismatch: 31 invoices, ₹2.1 lakh, mostly rounding and debit notes - Supplier cancelled: 8 invoices, ₹1.7 lakh; cancellation effective after the invoice dates - Deliverable: Reconciliation grid in Excel with both-side references, and a summary note Prompt to try (ITC reconciliation): Reconcile the purchase register against the GSTR-2B exports in this matter for FY 2022-23, invoice by invoice. Give me a grid of matched, missing from 2B, value mismatch, supplier cancelled and claimed late, with the line on each side, total each category, and say which condition in section 16 each unmatched credit fails. Sample documents (2): Purchase register and ITC ledger extract, FY 2022-23 (Ketaki Polymers); GSTR-2B statements for FY 2022-23, consolidated extract (Ketaki Polymers). #### Reassessment notices and the question of which Act Problem: The client receives a notice proposing to reopen an assessment for an earlier year. The Income-tax Act 2025 has been in force since 1 April 2026, but a reopening for an assessment year under the 1961 Act still runs through the 1961 procedure: the show cause under section 148A, the time limits in section 149 and the monetary threshold that decides whether the longer period is available. The best answer is often jurisdictional. If the escaped income alleged is below ₹50 lakh and the three-year period has passed, the notice fails before the merits are reached. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the notice, the information relied on, the return and the original assessment, identifies which Act and which procedure govern the year, and checks each jurisdictional condition: the period, the threshold, the approval and whether the information was already before the assessing officer. It then drafts the reply to the show cause on jurisdiction and merits, with each proposition cited to the section and the ruling, and flags where a writ is worth considering if the objection is rejected. Example output: - Notice: Show cause under s.148A(b), 1961 Act, dated 18.08.2026, for AY 2022-23 - Alleged: Unexplained credit of ₹38 lakh in a savings account - Governing law: 1961 Act procedure, as amended from 1 September 2024, for an assessment year before the 2025 Act - Time limit: AY ended 31.03.2023; the three-year period has passed and the amount is below the ₹50 lakh threshold for the longer period - Merits: Credit is a loan from a relative, with bank statement and confirmation on file (p. 14 to 19) - Deliverable: Reply to the show cause, jurisdiction first, in Word Prompt to try (Reassessment reply): Read this reassessment notice, the information relied on, the return and the original assessment. Tell me which Act and procedure govern this year, check every jurisdictional condition including the time limit and the ₹50 lakh threshold, then draft the reply on jurisdiction and merits. Sample documents (2): Income-tax show cause notice under section 148A, AY 2022-23 (Rohan Vaze); Rohan Vaze — AY 2022-23 return, section 143(1) intimation, bank statement and loan confirmation (pp. 1-19). #### Research and opinions on unsettled points Problem: The client wants an opinion on a question the statute answers only in part. Is GST payable on a corporate guarantee given by a parent for a subsidiary's loan, and on what value? The answer depends on a rule inserted in October 2023, the circulars that followed, and whether the subsidiary can take full credit. An opinion that states one view without the rule, the circular and the counter-argument is not one a client can rely on in an audit. How Justis handles it: Justis searches the Acts, rules, notifications and circulars with Supreme Court, High Court and tribunal decisions, and builds the answer step by step: the provision, the amendment and its date, the circular and what it clarifies, and the decisions on each side. Every quotation links to its source. It writes the opinion in your format, with a short answer, the analysis and the risk stated plainly, and marks where the position is unsettled rather than presenting it as settled. Example output: - Question: GST on a parent's guarantee of a ₹50 crore loan to its subsidiary - Provision: Rule 28(2), CGST Rules, from 26 October 2023: 1% of the guaranteed amount a year, or the actual consideration if higher - Credit: Where the recipient is eligible for full input tax credit, the invoice value is deemed to be the open market value - Earlier periods: Before the rule, valuation contested; decisions summarised and linked - Short answer: Taxable; if the subsidiary takes full credit, declared value accepted and exposure is neutral - Deliverable: Opinion in Word with table of authorities Prompt to try (Tax opinion): Research whether GST is payable on a corporate guarantee given by a parent company for its subsidiary's bank loan, and on what value, for periods before and after 26 October 2023. Cite the rule, the circulars and the decisions on each side, and write a short opinion with the risk stated plainly. #### Tax review of a transaction's documents Problem: In an acquisition, the tax questions sit across fifty documents: the share purchase agreement, the business transfer agreement, the intercompany agreements, the ESOP plan, the earn-out. Each can trigger withholding, capital gains, transfer pricing or GST, and the indemnity has to match the exposure. The review usually happens in the last week of the deal, when there is no time to read everything twice. How Justis handles it: Tabular review asks the same tax questions of every document in the data room: what is triggered, who bears it, what withholding applies, and whether the tax warranties and indemnity cover it. Each answer comes back as a cited cell, with the clause and page. Justis then drafts the tax section of the diligence report, ranked by exposure, and proposes the tax indemnity and escrow language as tracked changes in the SPA. Example output: - Documents: 54 in the data room, 2,310 pages - Withholding: Payment to a non-resident seller: withholding under the Income-tax Act 2025 not addressed in the SPA - Transfer pricing: Intercompany services at cost with no mark-up (Services agreement, cl. 5) - GST: Brand licence royalty paid to a foreign affiliate: reverse charge not reflected in returns - Indemnity: Tax indemnity capped at 10% of the price and limited to 3 years; flagged - Deliverable: Tax grid in Excel, diligence section and SPA mark-up in Word Prompt to try (Tax diligence): Review every document in this data room for tax. For each, tell me what tax is triggered, who bears it, what withholding applies and whether the SPA warranties and indemnity cover it, citing the clause and page. Then draft the tax section of the diligence report and propose indemnity language as tracked changes. Sample documents (2): Draft share purchase agreement — acquisition of Sarvik Engineering Plastics by Ketaki Polymers; Sarvik data room — index, intercompany services agreement, brand licence and GST return summary. #### Structuring memos Problem: The client wants to sell a business division and asks whether to sell it as a going concern or sell the assets one by one. The answer runs through capital gains, the treatment of depreciable assets and stock, GST on the transfer and stamp duty on the documents, and each head can point a different way. The memo has to show its working. The board will ask why, and the assessing officer may ask later. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the balance sheet, the asset register and the term sheet, walks each option through income tax, GST and stamp duty, and computes the tax under each with the assumptions stated. It names the provision behind each step, including the GST exemption for the transfer of a going concern. It writes the memo with a comparison table and a recommendation, and lists the conditions the transaction must meet for the recommended treatment to hold. Example output: - Transaction: Sale of a manufacturing division for ₹42 crore - Slump sale: Capital gains on the division's net worth under the Income-tax Act 2025; single rate, no item-wise allocation - Itemised sale: Depreciable assets through the block, stock taxed as business income; higher total tax on these figures - GST: Transfer of a going concern exempt under Notification 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate); itemised sale taxable asset by asset - Conditions: Whole undertaking transferred, lump sum consideration, no values assigned to individual assets - Deliverable: Structuring memo with comparison table, in Word Prompt to try (Structuring memo): Using the balance sheet, asset register and term sheet in this matter, compare a slump sale of the division with an itemised sale of its assets across income tax, GST and stamp duty. Compute the tax under each with the assumptions stated, name the provision for each step, and recommend one with the conditions it depends on. Sample documents (1): Moulded Components Division sale — divisional balance sheet, asset register and term sheet. #### When the order arrives: appeal and pre-deposit Problem: The adjudication order confirms the demand, and the client wants to know the same day whether to appeal, by when, and what must be paid first. A first appeal under section 107 of the CGST Act has to be filed within three months of communication, with a further month only for sufficient cause, and the pre-deposit must be made before it is admitted. The grounds have to come from the order itself: the submission it did not deal with, the document it ignored and the provision it misread. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the order against the reply and the record, lists each submission and whether the order dealt with it, and identifies the grounds, strongest first. It computes the last date and the pre-deposit, and notes where recovery of the balance is stayed once the deposit is made. It drafts the grounds of appeal and the statement of facts in Word, each ground tied to a paragraph of the order and a page of the record. Example output: - Order: Order under s.74 dated 12.08.2026, communicated 14.08.2026, tax of ₹96 lakh confirmed - Last date: Three months under s.107(1): 14 November 2026; further one month for sufficient cause to 14 December 2026 - Pre-deposit: 10% of the tax in dispute: ₹9.6 lakh, with the admitted amount paid in full - Not dealt with: 3 of 7 submissions, including the limitation objection (Reply, para 4) - Grounds: 6 grounds, each tied to a paragraph of the order and the record - Deliverable: Grounds of appeal and statement of facts in Word Prompt to try (Appeal the order): Read this adjudication order against our reply and the record. List each submission and whether the order dealt with it, identify the grounds of appeal strongest first, compute the last date and the pre-deposit under section 107, and draft the grounds and the statement of facts. Sample documents (4): Order-in-original under section 74 dated 12.08.2026 (Ketaki Polymers); Reply to the section 74 show cause notice, filed 10.04.2026 (Ketaki Polymers); GST show cause notice under section 74 with DRC-01 summary (Ketaki Polymers, FY 2022-23); Purchase register and ITC ledger extract, FY 2022-23 (Ketaki Polymers). #### Replying to a scrutiny questionnaire from the books Problem: The assessing unit's questionnaire under section 142(1) asks four questions in a page and a half and gives two weeks. Each answer has to come from the books: the creditor ageing, the TDS challans, the GST returns, a ledger that has not moved in four years. A reply that concedes nothing, or concedes everything, both cost the client. The questions are often framed on the widest reading. A query under section 43B(h) will list every creditor with an Udyam number, though the provision reaches only micro and small enterprises, and not traders. A query on TDS will apply last year's rate to the whole year. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the notice with the books extract, takes each query in turn and sets it against the schedule that answers it, with the line and the date. It says where the department is right and where it is not, works the figures, and names the weak point the reply has to handle with care. It then drafts the reply in Word, query by query, conceding what should be conceded, with an annexure list of the documents to upload. Example output: - Notice: Section 142(1) questionnaire dated 22.09.2026, AY 2025-26 under the 1961 Act, reply due 07.10.2026 - Section 43B(h): ₹40.3 lakh questioned; only ₹18.4 lakh to Shivneri (micro, paid 22.05.2025) is disallowable; Rajgad is a trader and Neelkanth medium - Commission: TDS at 5% to 30.09.2024 and 2% from 01.10.2024 gives ₹84,000; no short deduction - Late deposit: March TDS paid 07.05.2025, after 30 April but before the return was filed; no section 40(a)(ia) disallowance - Turnover gap: ₹88 lakh between GSTR-3B and revenue is rent from Ketaki Moulds LLP, shown under other income - Weak point: Om Sai Polychem ₹6.2 lakh since 2021-22: no balance confirmation on file, letters returned - Deliverable: Reply in Word, query by query, with an annexure list Prompt to try (Scrutiny reply): Read this section 142(1) notice against the books extract in this matter. For each query, set out what the books show with the schedule and line, say whether the department is right in law and on the figures, compute what if anything should be conceded, and flag the weak points. Then draft the reply, query by query, with a list of annexures. Sample documents (2): Income-tax notice under section 142(1), AY 2025-26 (Ketaki Polymers, scrutiny); Books extract for the AY 2025-26 scrutiny, FY 2024-25 (Ketaki Polymers). #### Filling the GST appeal form from the order Problem: Once the grounds are settled, the appeal still has to be put into FORM GST APL-01: the order number and date, the date of communication, the period, the amounts under dispute by head and by tax, what is admitted, the pre-deposit and whether the appeal is late. The client's accounts team usually sends an intake sheet, and the intake sheet is usually wrong somewhere. The mistakes are small and they matter. The order date is confused with the date it was uploaded, the period copied from the notice's subject line, and the pre-deposit worked on tax and penalty together, when section 107(6) asks for ten per cent of the tax in dispute. How Justis handles it: Justis fills the blank Word form from the order and the intake sheet, field by field, and checks every entry against the order before it goes in. Where the intake sheet and the order disagree, it uses the order and says so in a comment on the field. It computes the amounts in dispute, the pre-deposit split by CGST and SGST and the last date for filing, and drafts the statement of facts and the grounds as the annexures to items 11 and 12. Entering the particulars on the portal and filing stay with you. Example output: - Order: OIO 09/JC/GST/PUN-I/2026-27 dated 12.08.2026; the intake sheet's 14.08.2026 is the date of communication - Period: January 2022 to March 2023, not FY 2022-23: the rent demand includes the January to March 2022 quarter - In dispute: Tax ₹96 lakh (CGST and SGST ₹48 lakh each), penalty ₹96 lakh, interest unquantified; nothing admitted - Pre-deposit: ₹9.6 lakh (₹4.8 lakh each), 10% of the tax only; the intake sheet's ₹19.2 lakh wrongly adds the penalty - Delay: Last date 14.11.2026 under section 107(1); item 16 answered No - Deliverable: APL-01 filled in Word with comments, and the statement of facts and grounds Prompt to try (Fill APL-01): Fill this blank FORM GST APL-01 from the order-in-original and the client's appeal intake sheet in this matter. Check every intake entry against the order and use the order where they differ, with a comment saying why. Compute the amounts in dispute, the admitted amount, the pre-deposit under section 107(6) by CGST and SGST, and the last date, and draft the statement of facts and grounds for items 11 and 12. Sample documents (3): FORM GST APL-01 — appeal to the Appellate Authority (blank Word form); Appeal intake sheet — GST appeal against OIO 09/JC/GST/PUN-I/2026-27 (Ketaki Polymers); Order-in-original under section 74 dated 12.08.2026 (Ketaki Polymers). #### Vendor invoices: input tax credit and TDS Problem: Before the annual return and the tax audit, someone has to go through the year's expense and capital invoices and ask the same questions of each: is the credit available or blocked under section 17(5), is the invoice good enough to support it, is the supply one on which the company itself pays tax under reverse charge, and what TDS the payment attracted. The answers turn on detail. A foundation for a machine is plant and machinery and the credit is available; a warehouse building is not. Legal fees from a firm of advocates are taxed in the recipient's hands, so GST charged on the invoice is a problem, not a credit. How Justis handles it: Tabular review asks the same questions of every invoice: supplier, nature of supply, ITC eligibility with the provision, invoice defects under rule 46, TDS section and amount, and the action to take. Each cell cites the invoice line it was read from. The grid exports to Excel for the accounts team, and Justis can draft the request for a corrected invoice or the note to the auditors from it. Example output: - Read: 6 invoices for FY 2025-26, ₹65.3 lakh of taxable value - Blocked: Dealers' meet catering (s.17(5)(b)(i)), club membership (s.17(5)(b)(ii)), warehouse building works contract (s.17(5)(c)) - Eligible: Moulding machine foundation and installation: plant and machinery includes foundations (Explanation to s.17) - Reverse charge: Advocates' fees of ₹3.5 lakh charged with CGST and SGST; tax is payable by the company under reverse charge - Invoice defect: Godown rent invoice shows no recipient GSTIN; corrected invoice needed before the credit is claimed - TDS: s.194C on catering, construction and foundation; s.194J ₹35,000 on legal fees; s.194-I ₹36,000 on the godown rent Prompt to try (Invoice ITC and TDS): Review every vendor invoice in this matter for FY 2025-26. For each, give the supplier and value, the nature of the supply, whether input tax credit is available, blocked or subject to reverse charge with the provision, any defect under rule 46 of the CGST Rules, the TDS section and amount, and the action for the accounts team. Opens in: Tabular Review, one column per question (Supplier, Invoice date, Taxable value, GST rate, Nature of supply, ITC eligibility, Invoice defects, TDS section, TDS amount, Action). Sample documents (6): Tax invoice — Annapurna Caterers, food and beverages for the dealers' meet (12.12.2025); Tax invoice — Poona Business Club, corporate membership FY 2025-26 (03.04.2025); Tax invoice — Shree Ganesh Constructions, RA bill 3 for the new finished-goods warehouse at Chakan (28.02.2026); Tax invoice — Deccan Engineering Works, foundation and installation of a 450-tonne moulding machine (16.01.2026); Invoice — Vaidya & Associates, Advocates, professional fees for the GST appeal (20.03.2026); Tax invoice — Smt. Sunanda Kulkarni, godown rent at Chakan, January to March 2026 (05.01.2026). #### Tax clauses in a contract with a foreign provider Problem: A German tool designer sends its draft services agreement. The tax clauses look like boilerplate and are not: a full gross-up of Indian withholding, GST to be charged on the provider's invoice, a carve-out of all tax from the indemnity, and engineers on site for up to 150 days. Each has a cost. A gross-up makes the client bear the provider's income tax. On an import of services the client pays IGST itself under reverse charge, so a clause that has the provider charge it is wrong. Without a tax residency certificate the treaty rate cannot be applied at all. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the draft against the client's standard tax positions, clause by clause, and marks up the agreement as tracked changes with a comment on each change saying which position it applies and why. Where the draft raises a question for the client's tax team rather than for the other side, such as the number of days on site and the permanent establishment exposure under the treaty, it says so in a comment instead of guessing at an answer. Example output: - Withholding: Cl. 6.1 full gross-up deleted; fees stated gross and tax withheld at the lower of the domestic and treaty rates - Treaty papers: New cl. 6.4: tax residency certificate, Form 10F, no-PE and beneficial ownership declarations before the first payment - GST: Cl. 6.2 rewritten: import of services, IGST paid by Ketaki under reverse charge, no GST on the provider's invoice - Conflict: Cl. 6.3 'each party bears its own taxes' contradicts cl. 6.1 as drafted; aligned - On site: Cl. 9.3-9.4: a dedicated office and up to 150 days at Chakan; flagged for the tax team, day count and cap proposed - Indemnity: Cl. 14.2 tax carve-out replaced with a tax indemnity for wrong treaty documents or the provider's own PE - Deliverable: Tracked-changes agreement with comments, and a short note for the tax team Prompt to try (Tax clause mark-up): We act for Ketaki Polymers. Review the tax clauses in this services agreement with a German provider against our standard tax positions in this matter: withholding and gross-up, treaty documents, GST on import of services, on-site personnel and permanent establishment, and the tax indemnity. Mark up each departure as a tracked change with a comment giving the reason, and list the points the tax team must decide. Sample documents (2): Mould Design and Engineering Services Agreement — Formwerk Werkzeugbau GmbH's draft v2 (Ketaki Polymers); Ketaki Polymers — standard tax positions for contracts with foreign service providers (tax team note). #### The assessment record and the appeal to the Tribunal Problem: The first appellate order arrives and partly allows the appeal. The appeal to the Tribunal has to be filed within sixty days, and its grounds are only as good as the record: the questionnaire, the replies and their annexures, the show cause notice with its draft variations, the assessment order and the grounds before the Commissioner (Appeals). The best grounds are usually in the record and not in the order: a document the order says was never filed, a ground the appellate order never dealt with, an addition the show cause notice never proposed. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the compiled record with the appellate order, follows each addition from the questionnaire to the order, and sets what each authority said against the page of the record that answers it. It lists the grounds, strongest first, and computes the last date. It drafts the grounds of appeal and the statement of facts in Word, each ground tied to a paragraph of the order and a page of the paper book, and proposes the paper book index. Example output: - Record: Assessment and first appeal record for AY 2023-24, pp. 1-72; CIT(A) order of 12.08.2026, communicated 18.08.2026 - Last date: Sixty days from communication under section 253(3) of the 1961 Act: 17 October 2026 - Section 68: CIT(A) says the lender gave no explanation of her source (para 6.3); her letter, bank statement and sale deed are at pp. 46-48 - Depreciation: ₹8.4 lakh on moulds: never proposed in the show cause notice (pp. 57-60), and ground 4 on that point not dealt with by the CIT(A) - Not in appeal: Commission disallowance of ₹18.72 lakh deleted; watch for the department's appeal - Deliverable: Grounds of appeal, statement of facts and paper book index in Word Prompt to try (Tribunal appeal): Read the assessment record and the CIT(A) order in this matter. Follow each addition from the questionnaire to the appellate order, set what each authority said against the page of the record that answers it, list the grounds for the appeal to the Tribunal strongest first, compute the last date, and draft the grounds, the statement of facts and a paper book index. Sample documents (2): Appellate order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), AY 2023-24, dated 12.08.2026 (Ketaki Polymers); Assessment record, AY 2023-24 (Ketaki Polymers) — notices, replies, show cause, assessment order and Form 35, pp. 1-72. Questions: - Q: Does it work under the Income-tax Act 2025? A: Yes. The 2025 Act has been in force since 1 April 2026, and Justis works under it for the current tax year. For notices and proceedings about earlier years it applies the 1961 Act where that still governs, and tells you which Act each conclusion rests on. - Q: Can it read GST returns and ledgers in Excel? A: Yes. It reads Excel and CSV exports of returns, registers and ledgers alongside PDFs and scans, and cites the sheet and line for each figure it uses. - Q: Does it connect to the GST or income-tax portals? A: No. It works from what you download and upload: notices, returns, 2B statements and orders. Filing and replying on the portals stays with you. - Q: Will it tell us when the courts disagree? A: Yes. Where High Courts or tribunals have gone different ways, it sets out each line of authority with links and says which binds your forum, rather than presenting one view as settled. - Q: Is client financial data kept confidential? A: Documents and chats are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. - Q: What should a tax lawyer try first? A: A notice you have already answered. Upload it with the papers you relied on, ask for a point-by-point analysis with the provision and the record for each answer, and compare it with the reply you filed. It shows you quickly where it helps and where you still want to look yourself. ### How IP lawyers use Justis AI URL: https://askjustis.com/use-cases/intellectual-property IP practice runs on two things at once: dates that cannot be missed and distinctions that have to be argued well. The opposition window closes four months after the Journal, a counter-statement not filed in time means the application is abandoned, and a patent FER has a fixed period to answer. Inside those dates sit the real questions: whether two marks are deceptively similar, whether a claim involves an inventive step, whether the client actually owns the copyright it is licensing. Justis holds the portfolio and the argument in one place. You upload the filings, the examination reports, the notices and the agreements to a project, and it reads every page, then extracts the dates, compares the marks or maps the claims, and drafts the reply in your format. Every point carries the document and page it came from, and every authority links to the paragraph it relies on. Try this first: Take an examination report you have already answered. Upload it with the application and the cited marks, and ask for a ground-by-ground reply with the authority for each. Compare it with the reply you filed. On a matter you know, you will see quickly what it gets right and where your judgment still decides. #### Replying to a trade mark examination report Problem: The examination report raises two objections: the mark is said to be descriptive under section 9, and three earlier marks are cited under section 11. The reply is due within a month, and it has to meet each objection on its own terms, with evidence of use where acquired distinctiveness is the answer. Section 11 citations are where replies go wrong. The comparison has to be of the marks as a whole, their appearance, sound and idea, with the goods, the trade channels and the purchasers, not a list of differing letters. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the report, the application and the cited marks' details, and answers each objection separately. For a section 9 objection it argues the mark as suggestive where the record supports it and marshals the evidence of use. For each section 11 citation it compares the marks as a whole and the goods, and says honestly which citations are hard to overcome. It drafts the reply in Word in your format, with the grounds, the authority for each and the list of documents to file with it, and computes the reply date from the date the report was received. Example output: - Application: SWIFTKART, word mark, class 35, proposed to be used - Section 9: Said to be descriptive of fast online retail; reply argues a coined combination needing a step of imagination - Section 11: 3 citations: SWIFTCART (class 35) marked hard to overcome; SWIFT KARE and SWIFTCRAFT distinguishable on idea and goods - Option: Restrict the specification to exclude online grocery retail, to meet the SWIFTCART citation - Reply date: Report received 07.09.2026: reply due within one month, by Wednesday 7 October 2026 - Deliverable: Reply in Word with grounds, authorities and document list Prompt to try (Examination reply): Read this examination report, the application and the details of the cited marks. Answer each objection separately: for section 9, the case for distinctiveness and the evidence to file; for each section 11 citation, a comparison of the marks as a whole and the goods, with an honest view of which are hard to overcome. Then draft the reply and give me the due date. Sample documents (2): Examination Report — SWIFTKART, Application No. 7214586, Class 35; The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (IP India). #### Oppositions: notice, counter-statement and evidence Problem: A competitor's mark appears in the Trade Marks Journal. The notice of opposition under section 21 must be filed within four months of the advertisement, and the grounds have to be pleaded then: similarity under section 11, bad faith, prior use, and the mark's lack of distinctiveness. On the other side, an applicant served with an opposition has two months to file the counter-statement, and missing that date means the application is treated as abandoned. The evidence stages that follow each have their own clock. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the Journal extract, the client's registrations and evidence of use, and drafts the notice of opposition with each ground tied to a fact and a document. For an applicant, it reads the notice and drafts the counter-statement, answering each ground and pleading the applicant's own use. It computes every date from the documents in the project and keeps them in the matter's schedule, and when the evidence stage comes it builds the affidavit from the use evidence, with the exhibits indexed. Example output: - Advertised: NYSO, class 5, Journal dated 06.07.2026 - Opposition window: Four months from advertisement: last date Friday 6 November 2026 - Grounds: s.11(1) similarity to the client's NISO in class 5; prior use since 2012; bad faith, given a failed distributorship - Evidence: Sales of ₹48 crore since 2019, invoices across 14 states, 3 earlier registrations - Counter-statement clock: If served on the applicant 16.09.2026: two months, to Monday 16 November 2026 - Deliverable: Notice of opposition and statement of case in Word Prompt to try (Notice of opposition): Read the Journal extract for this mark, our client's registrations and the evidence of use in this matter. Tell me the last date to oppose, draft the notice of opposition with each ground tied to a fact and a document, and list the evidence we will need at the evidence stage. Sample documents (3): Trade Marks Journal Extract — NYSO, Class 5 (Journal No. 2271, 06.07.2026); NISO — Registrations, Evidence of Use and Distributor History (Client Dossier); The Trade Marks Rules, 2017 (IP India). #### The portfolio and what falls due next Problem: A client with two hundred marks across twenty classes, and a handful of patents, moves its work to you. The records arrive as registration certificates, renewal receipts, examination reports and a spreadsheet last updated two years ago. A trade mark registration lasts ten years and can be renewed within the year before it expires; after that there is a short window with a surcharge and then restoration. Patent renewal fees fall due every year. A date missed in a portfolio this size is almost always a date nobody extracted. How Justis handles it: Justis reads every certificate, receipt, report and notice in the matter and builds the portfolio grid: mark or patent, class, status, the last action and the next date that matters, each with the document and page it was read from. It flags the entries where the documents disagree with the spreadsheet, the marks with no renewal on file, and the applications with an open action. The grid exports to Excel. It is a working view of your documents, not a docketing system of record. Example output: - Read: 212 trade mark records, 9 patents, 1,460 pages - Grid: Mark, class, number, status, last action, next date, each cited - Renewal due: 14 registrations expire in the next 12 months; 3 within 90 days - Disagrees: INDUS POWER, class 11: spreadsheet says renewed, no renewal receipt or certificate on file - Open action: NIMBUS, class 35: examination report of 22.08.2026 unanswered - Deliverable: Portfolio grid in Excel and an action list in Word Prompt to try (Portfolio grid): Read every certificate, renewal receipt, examination report and notice in this matter and build a portfolio grid: mark or patent, class, number, status, last action and next date, citing the document for each. Flag every entry where the documents disagree with the client's spreadsheet and every renewal due in the next twelve months. Sample documents (3): TCPL IP Portfolio Schedule (client spreadsheet, last updated June 2024); TCPL Portfolio Records Bundle — Certificates, Receipts, Reports and Handover Letter; The Trade Marks Rules, 2017 (IP India). #### Answering a patent First Examination Report Problem: The First Examination Report objects that the claims lack inventive step over two cited documents, and that the main claim is a computer programme per se under section 3(k). The response period is six months from the date of the report, extendable by three, and the application is deemed abandoned if nothing is filed. An obviousness objection is answered element by element. Which feature of the claim does each citation actually disclose, and is there any reason a skilled person would have combined them? How Justis handles it: Justis reads the specification, the claims, the FER and the cited documents, and maps each claim element against what each citation discloses, with the column or paragraph. The elements no citation discloses are marked as gaps, and those are where the argument and any amendment start. It drafts the response with the argument on inventive step, the technical effect relied on against the section 3(k) objection, and proposed claim amendments shown as tracked changes, supported by the specification as filed. Example output: - FER: Issued 10.08.2026: lack of inventive step over D1 and D2; claims 1 to 9 objected under s.3(k) - Claim map: 12 elements: 6 disclosed, 2 partly disclosed, 4 not disclosed by D1 or D2 - Gap relied on: Adaptive threshold that retrains on sensor drift: not in D1 or D2 (specification, p. 14) - s.3(k): Technical effect: reduced false trips in a physical sensor array, not a programme per se - Deadline: Six months from the FER: Wednesday 10 February 2027, extendable by three months to Monday 10 May 2027 - Deliverable: FER response with claim amendments as tracked changes, in Word Prompt to try (FER response): Read the specification, the claims, this First Examination Report and the cited documents. Map each claim element against what each citation discloses, with the column or paragraph, and mark the gaps. Then draft the response on inventive step and section 3(k), with proposed claim amendments supported by the specification, and give me the response deadline. Sample documents (2): First Examination Report — Patent Application 202421067843, with Extracts of D1 and D2; Complete Specification and Claims — Patent Application 202421067843 (Adaptive Fault Detection). #### Infringement, passing off and interim injunctions Problem: The client finds a competitor selling a product under a similar mark in a similar get-up. The question is whether to send a notice or go straight to court for an interim injunction, and the answer depends on the evidence: the registration, the length and extent of use, the similarity, and how quickly the client has acted. An infringement suit under section 29 of the Trade Marks Act needs a registration. Passing off does not, but it needs proof of goodwill and misrepresentation. A commercial suit seeking urgent interim relief can be filed without pre-institution mediation, but only if the urgency is real. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the client's registrations and use evidence, the photographs of the competing product and any correspondence, and compares the marks and the get-up. It sets out the case for infringement and for passing off, and grades the interim injunction factors, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm, with the evidence for each. It drafts the cease and desist notice or the plaint and the interim application, with the jurisdiction pleaded, the evidence indexed and the authorities linked to the paragraph. Example output: - Marks: Client's KAVACH (class 9, registered 2016) against KAVACHH on identical goods - Similarity: Phonetically identical, visually near-identical; same goods, same retail channel - Get-up: Same colour scheme and shield device on the pack (Photos 3 to 7) - Delay: First sale seen 02.08.2026; notice not yet sent; urgency supportable if filed promptly - Causes of action: Infringement under s.29 and passing off; both pleaded - Deliverable: Plaint, interim application and evidence index in Word Prompt to try (Infringement assessment): Read our client's registrations and use evidence and the photographs of the competing product. Compare the marks and the get-up, set out the case for infringement and passing off, grade the interim injunction factors with the evidence for each, and tell me whether to send a notice or file for urgent interim relief. Then draft whichever you recommend. Sample documents (2): Investigation Report — KAVACHH Surge Protectors (Delhi NCR), with Photo Log and KAVACH Use Evidence; TCPL Portfolio Records Bundle — Certificates, Receipts, Reports and Handover Letter. #### IP diligence and the chain of ownership Problem: An investor is paying for the target's brand, software and content, and the diligence has to show the target actually owns them. The marks may be registered in a founder's name, the software may have been written by contractors with no assignment, and the content may have been licensed for a period that has run out. Under the Copyright Act the author is the first owner unless an exception applies, an assignment must be in writing, and an assignment that does not state its period or territory is read as five years and India. Each of those can mean the target owns less than it thinks. How Justis handles it: Tabular review asks the same questions of every agreement, certificate and assignment in the data room: what IP it covers, who owns it, whether the assignment is in writing, its period and territory, and whether it is recorded. Each answer comes back as a cited cell. Justis then lists the ownership gaps, ranked by what they mean for the deal, and drafts the confirmatory assignments and the conditions precedent to close them. Example output: - Read: 86 documents: registrations, employment and consultancy agreements, licences - Marks: 4 of 11 registered in the founder's name; assignment to the company not recorded - Software: Core modules written by 3 contractors; consultancy agreements have no IP assignment clause - Content: Photo library assigned with no period stated: treated as 5 years, expired in 2025 - Employees: Employment agreements assign work made in the course of employment; clean - Deliverable: IP grid in Excel, issues memo and draft confirmatory assignments in Word Prompt to try (IP diligence): Review every agreement, certificate and assignment in this data room for intellectual property. For each, tell me what IP it covers, who owns it, whether any assignment is in writing, its period and territory, and whether it is recorded, citing the clause and page. Then list the ownership gaps ranked by risk and draft the confirmatory assignments. Sample documents (3): Rangoli Living — Data Room IP Index with Agreement Extracts; Deed of Assignment of Trade Marks — Ishaan Mehrotra to Rangoli Living Private Limited (15.03.2023); Deed of Assignment of Copyright — Photo Library, Farhan Qureshi to Rangoli Living (18.06.2020). #### Licences and assignments against your playbook Problem: A brand licence, a technology licence and a content licence cross the desk in the same week, each on the other side's paper. The points that matter repeat: scope and exclusivity, quality control, sublicensing, royalty and audit, improvements, termination and what happens to stock on termination. Quality control is not a formality in a trade mark licence: a licence with no control over the goods can weaken the mark itself. Recording a registered user or an assignment with the registry is a separate step that is easily forgotten. How Justis handles it: Write your positions down once as a playbook, licensor side and licensee side. Justis reads each licence against it, flags every departure, and proposes the change as a tracked edit, with a short note on why. It also checks what the statute asks of the document, such as writing and the terms of an assignment under the Copyright Act, and lists the filings to make with the registry after signing. Example output: - Licence: Exclusive brand licence for India, 5 years, from a foreign licensor - Quality control: No inspection or approval rights for the licensor; playbook requires both - Sublicensing: Permitted without consent; flagged - Royalty: 6% of net sales; no audit right for the licensor - Termination: No sell-off period for stock; playbook allows 90 days - Deliverable: Tracked-changes licence, issues list and post-signing filing list in Word Prompt to try (Review the licence): We act for the licensor. Review this brand licence against our licensor playbook. Flag every departure on scope, exclusivity, quality control, sublicensing, royalty and audit, improvements and termination, propose each change as a tracked edit with a short reason, and list what needs recording with the registry after signing. Sample documents (2): VAAYU Exclusive Brand Licence Agreement — Licensee's Draft v1; Licensor Playbook — Trade Mark (Brand) Licences, Trivikram Group. #### Replying to a cease and desist notice Problem: The client receives a notice from a rival's advocates: stop using the mark in seven days, destroy the stock, pay damages. The notice is written to frighten, and it usually leaves things out: when the rival actually started, what its own registration covers, and any condition the Registry put on it. The reply has to be firm and accurate. If the client is itself registered, section 28(3) and section 30(2)(e) answer an infringement claim between two registered proprietors; prior use answers the rest. A reply that overstates the client's case, or misses that the client's own registration is about to expire, gives the other side its opening. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the notice with the client's registration and use evidence, sets out each allegation against what the documents show, and checks both registrations: dates, goods, user claims and any limitation entered on the register. It drafts the reply in Word, denying what is wrong, asserting the client's registration, prior use and the descriptive meaning of the word, and reserving the remedy for groundless threats under section 142. It lists what the client must do now, starting with any renewal that falls due. Example output: - Notice: Sugandha Agarbatti Works, 22.09.2026: stop SUGANDH in 7 days, pay ₹25 lakh - Dates: TCPL applied 29.11.2016 and first sold 14.03.2017; the notice-giver applied 12.04.2019 and claims use from 01.06.2018 - Their registration: No. 4156789 is a label mark registered with no right to exclusive use of the word SUGANDHA - Defences: Both registered: s.28(3) and s.30(2)(e); prior use under s.34; 'sugandh' means fragrance - Wrong in the notice: Says TCPL adopted the mark 'in or about 2023'; sales since 2017 on record - Act now: TCPL's registration No. 3402966 expires 29.11.2026 and is not yet renewed; file TM-R - Deliverable: Reply to the notice in Word and an action list Prompt to try (Reply to the notice): Read this cease and desist notice with our client's registration and use file in this matter. Set out each allegation against what the documents show, compare the two registrations including dates, goods, user claims and any condition on the register, and draft a firm reply asserting our registration, prior use and the meaning of the word, reserving our rights under section 142. List what the client must do now. Sample documents (3): Cease and desist notice — Sugandha Agarbatti Works to TCPL over the SUGANDH mark (22.09.2026); SUGANDH — TCPL's registration, use evidence and renewal status (client file for the reply); The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (IP India). #### Redlining a technology licence for the licensee Problem: The client is taking an exclusive licence of a start-up's patents and know-how on the licensor's paper. The royalty runs for ten years whatever happens to the patents, the licensee must buy components from the licensor, every improvement the licensee makes goes to the licensor for nothing, and the licensee may never challenge a patent. Some of this is not merely one-sided. Section 140 of the Patents Act makes void a condition requiring the licensee to buy unpatented articles from the licensor, an exclusive grant-back and a bar on challenging validity. Section 141 lets either party end the licence once the patent ceases. And a licence not registered under section 69 is not evidence of the licensee's interest. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the draft with the patent register extracts, checks the status and expiry of every licensed patent, and marks up the licence as tracked changes from the licensee's side, with a comment on each change giving the commercial reason or the provision that makes the clause void. It proposes royalty that steps down as patents lapse or expire, a licensor warranty and indemnity, and a clause for registering the licence, and lists what the client should raise on the call. Example output: - Patents: 4 in Schedule A: IN 336742 ceased for non-payment of the 9th-year renewal fee; 202241071234 is still an application - Royalty: Cl. 4.3: 4% for ten years 'whether or not any Licensed Patent remains in force'; step-down and s.141 termination right proposed - Supply tie: Cl. 5.1: driver ICs and sensors only from the licensor; void under s.140(1) - Grant-back and no-challenge: Cl. 7.2 exclusive free grant-back and cl. 7.4 no-challenge; both void under s.140(1)(iv) - Warranty: Cl. 10.2 disclaims validity and non-infringement; licensor warranty and indemnity added - Registration: No clause; licence to be registered with the Controller under s.69, none entered on the register today - Deliverable: Tracked-changes licence with comments and a negotiation list in Word Prompt to try (Licensee mark-up): We act for TCPL, the licensee. Review this technology licence against the patent register extracts in this matter. Check the status of every licensed patent, then mark up the licence as tracked changes with a comment on each change: royalty and patent lapse, the component supply tie, improvements and grant-back, the no-challenge clause, warranties and indemnity, termination and registration of the licence, citing sections 69, 140 and 141 of the Patents Act where they apply. Sample documents (2): Technology Licence Agreement — Ardent Motion Technologies to TCPL (BLDC fan motor controller), licensor's draft v1; Patent register extracts — Ardent Motion Technologies' Schedule A patents (as on 28.09.2026). #### Preparing a trade mark application from the brand team's sheet Problem: The brand team wants a new mark filed this week and sends an intake sheet. Form TM-A asks for things the sheet gets loosely or wrongly: the applicant's category for the fee, every class the goods fall in, a user date the evidence supports, the colours claimed and a translation of any Hindi word. Each slip costs something later. A wrong fee category means a deficiency; a user date earlier than the first invoice is a claim the client will have to prove on affidavit; an app filed in class 11 because the purifiers are in class 11 leaves the app unprotected. How Justis handles it: Justis fills the blank Word form from the intake sheet field by field, checks each entry against the evidence the sheet cites, and puts a comment on every field where it departed from the sheet and why. It drafts the specification of goods in Nice terms class by class, the description of the mark and the colour claim, computes the fee, and lists what is still needed before filing, such as the affidavit of use. Filing on the e-filing system stays with you. Example output: - Applicant: TCPL is a medium enterprise on its Udyam certificate, not small: fee ₹9,000 per class, not ₹4,500 - Classes: Purifiers and replacement filters in class 11; the companion app is downloadable software in class 9: a multi-class application - Use: Sheet claims use from 01.04.2026; first invoice is 12.06.2026, app live 15.06.2026; claim the evidenced dates with an affidavit under rule 25(4), or file as proposed to be used - Mark: Device mark with teal (Pantone 7713 C) and white claimed; 'Vaayu' translated as 'air' - Fee: 2 classes at ₹9,000: ₹18,000 on e-filing - Deliverable: TM-A particulars filled in Word with comments, and a pre-filing checklist Prompt to try (Fill Form TM-A): Fill this blank Form TM-A from the brand team's intake sheet in this matter. Check every entry against the evidence the sheet cites and use what the evidence supports, with a comment on each field where you departed from the sheet. Draft the specification of goods class by class in Nice terms, the description of the mark and the colour claim, compute the fee, and list what is still needed before filing. Sample documents (2): Form TM-A — application for registration of a trade mark (blank Word form); New mark intake sheet — VAAYU GLO (TCPL brand team), for the Form TM-A filing. #### Reading a patent's prosecution history into a non-infringement note Problem: A competitor writes alleging that the client's smart fan infringes its patent. The claims as granted are only half the story. To get the patent, the patentee narrowed claim 1, told the Controller what its invention was not, and deleted a claim at the hearing. Those statements are in the file wrapper, and they bear on what the claims can now be read to cover. The file wrapper also shows what the patentee did not narrow. A method claim left untouched may still read on the client's product, and the argument note has to say so plainly, with the answer: the prior art, and a counterclaim for revocation. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the file wrapper page by page with the client's technical note, traces each claim from filing to grant, and lists every amendment and statement the patentee made, with the page. It then compares the client's product with each asserted claim, element by element. It writes the argument note in Word: non-infringement where the prosecution history supports it, the exposure where it does not, the grounds for revocation under section 64 to consider, and the questions for the client's engineers. Example output: - Claim 1: Narrowed in the FER reply (20.09.2023) from any wireless protocol to a Bluetooth Low Energy mesh link with local processing (pp. 13-16) - Statements: 'Wi-Fi based and cloud-relayed controllers such as D1 are expressly outside the amended claim' (p. 16); 'operates entirely without a cloud server' (p. 29) - Product: SmartFan takes app commands over Wi-Fi through TCPL's cloud; BLE only for set-up, no mesh: outside claim 1 - Exposure: Method claim (claim 9 as filed, claim 8 as granted) was never amended: 2% PWM steps, and the SmartFan ramps in 1% steps - Answer: Stepped ramping used in TCPL's 2019 TEJAS dimmer firmware; examiner called it routine (p. 11); revocation grounds under s.64 to examine - Deliverable: Argument note with claim charts, and a reply to the letter in draft, in Word Prompt to try (Prosecution history note): Read the prosecution history of this patent and our client's technical note on its product in this matter. Trace each asserted claim from filing to grant, list every amendment and statement the patentee made with the page, compare our product with each asserted claim element by element, and write an argument note on non-infringement, the remaining exposure, and the grounds for revocation under section 64 we should examine. Sample documents (2): Prosecution history — Indian Patent No. 512047 (Voltaris Appliances, smart ceiling-fan speed controller), file wrapper pp. 1-38; INDUS AIR SmartFan — technical note on the controller (TCPL R&D, for the non-infringement analysis). #### Inventor and creator agreements: who owns the invention Problem: Before a patent application goes further, or a technology is licensed or sold, the client has to show it owns what its people made. The agreements were signed over five years on different forms: some employees assign everything, some only what they make in office hours, a consultant promised to assign on request and was never asked, and one signed copy cannot be found. The law treats each differently. An employer owns copyright in an employee's work made in the course of employment, but not a consultant's. A patent needs a chain of title from every inventor. And a copyright assignment that does not state its period or territory is read under section 19 as five years and India. How Justis handles it: Tabular review asks the same questions of every agreement: who and in what role, the assignment wording, the scope of IP covered and any limit, period and territory, execution, and the risk to the client. Each cell quotes the clause it relies on. Justis then ranks the gaps and drafts the confirmatory assignments, including a specific assignment of the invention from any inventor whose agreement does not reach it. Example output: - Read: 5 agreements: 3 employees, 2 outside contractors, behind patent application 202421067843 - Clean: Dr Meera Iyer: present assignment of everything made during employment, worldwide, full term (cl. 4.1-4.2) - Limited: Kunal Bhide, co-inventor: assigns only work 'during working hours at the Company's premises' (cl. 5.2); the algorithm was developed while working from home - Promise only: Vihaan Sensors Lab: 'shall assign … upon the Company's written request' (cl. 8.1); never requested, nothing assigned - Period and territory: Ananya Rao design agreement (05.05.2022) silent: five years and India under s.19(5) and (6), ending 05.05.2027 - Execution: Farid Shaikh: employee's signature block on p. 4 blank; signed copy not found Prompt to try (Inventor IP review): Review every employment, consultancy and design agreement in this matter for ownership of IP. For each, give the party and role, quote the assignment wording and say whether it is a present assignment or a promise to assign, the scope and any limit, the period and territory, whether it is properly executed, and the risk to the client with the clause. Then rank the gaps and draft the confirmatory assignments. Opens in: Tabular Review, one column per question (Party and role, Engagement, Agreement date, Assignment type, Scope and limits, Period and territory stated, Deemed end under s.19(5), Execution complete, Risk). Sample documents (5): Employment and IP assignment agreement — Dr Meera Iyer, Head of R&D (01.07.2019); Employment and IP agreement — Kunal Bhide, Lead Engineer, Electronics (15.01.2021); Consultancy agreement — Vihaan Sensors Lab LLP, sensor calibration study (10.10.2023); Design services agreement — Ananya Rao Design Studio, product housing and UI graphics (05.05.2022); Employment and IP assignment agreement — Farid Shaikh, Firmware Engineer (02.01.2024). Questions: - Q: Does it compare marks the way the courts do? A: It compares marks as a whole, by appearance, sound and idea, together with the goods, the trade channels and the likely purchaser, rather than letter by letter. It gives a view on each citation with the reasons, and says plainly when a citation will be hard to overcome. - Q: Can it read patent specifications and prior art? A: Yes. It reads specifications, claims and cited documents in PDF, including scans, and maps each claim element against each citation with the column, paragraph or figure it relies on. - Q: Does it cover copyright and designs? A: It works under the Copyright Act 1957 and the Designs Act 2000 as well as the Trade Marks Act 1999 and the Patents Act 1970, and researches the case law under each. - Q: Can it draft the plaint for an infringement suit? A: Yes. It drafts the plaint, the interim application and the evidence index from the documents in the matter, with the authorities linked. You settle, sign and file it. - Q: Is client IP material safe? A: Documents and chats are encrypted in transit and at rest, access is limited to the people on the matter, and nothing you upload is used to train models shared with anyone else. - Q: What should an IP lawyer try first? A: An examination report you have already answered. Upload it with the application and the cited marks, ask for a ground-by-ground reply with the authority for each, and compare it with the reply you filed. It is the quickest way to see where it helps and where you still want to look yourself. ### How employment lawyers use Justis AI URL: https://askjustis.com/use-cases/employment Employment work since 21 November 2025 means reading old paper against new law. The four labour codes replaced twenty-nine statutes, but the offer letters, handbooks and standing orders your clients rely on were written for the old ones. Add the state shops and establishments rules, the POSH Act and a termination file assembled in a hurry, and the question is rarely what the law says. It is whether this client's documents agree with it, and with each other. Justis reads the documents with you. Upload the contracts, the policies or the disciplinary file to a project and it reads every page, scans included, checks each clause against the code and the state rules that apply, and drafts in your style. Every conclusion carries the clause, the page or the section it rests on, and anything it could not confirm, such as a state rule that has not been notified, is marked rather than assumed. Try this first: Take a client whose contracts you already know. Upload twenty of them to a project and run a tabular review for notice period, non-compete, wage structure and termination grounds. Check five rows against the contracts yourself. That tells you in twenty minutes how far to trust the grid on a set of four hundred. #### Auditing a contract set against the labour codes Problem: A client has four hundred employment contracts on three templates written over ten years. Since the codes came into force, the wage definition drives gratuity, social security contributions and retrenchment cost, and a basic pay set at thirty per cent of CTC now has consequences. Nobody knows which contracts still carry a post-exit non-compete or a notice period below what the rules allow. Reading them one by one takes a team a fortnight, and the summary that comes out is a spreadsheet nobody can check because it has no page references. How Justis handles it: Upload the contracts to a project and tabular review asks the same questions of every one: wage components and whether allowances cross the fifty per cent line in the Code on Wages, notice period, non-compete and non-solicit, fixed-term status, and termination grounds. Each cell cites the clause and page it came from. Justis then groups the contracts by risk, explains each flag against the provision behind it, and drafts the replacement clauses, so the client gets both the finding and the fix. The grid exports to Excel. Example output: - Contracts read: 412 contracts on 3 templates, 37 scanned - Wage structure: 288 contracts where allowances exceed 50% of remuneration, so the excess counts as wages under the Code on Wages - Non-compete: 61 contracts with a post-exit non-compete, void after employment under s.27 Contract Act - Fixed-term staff: 44 fixed-term contracts silent on pro rata gratuity after one year under the Code on Social Security - Deliverables: Grid in Excel with a cited cell for each answer, and replacement clauses in Word Prompt to try (Contract audit): Run a tabular review of every employment contract in this matter. For each, extract the wage components, notice period, non-compete, non-solicit, fixed-term status and termination grounds, flag anything inconsistent with the labour codes or the state rules, and cite the clause and page for every answer. Opens in: Tabular Review, one column per question (Wage components, Basic + DA share, Allowances above 50%, Notice period (days), Non-compete after exit, Non-solicit, Employment type, Fixed-term parity and gratuity, Termination grounds). Sample documents (3): Appointment Letter (Template A, 2016) – Karthik Selvaraj, CNC Technician; Fixed-Term Employment Contract (Template B, 2020) – Neha Kulkarni, Quality Inspector; Employment Agreement (Template C, 2023) – Anirudh Rao, Head of Sales. #### Rewriting the handbook for the codes Problem: The handbook still cites the Industrial Disputes Act, the Payment of Gratuity Act and the Maternity Benefit Act, all now subsumed in the codes. The leave policy, the grievance procedure and the misconduct list were written for the old law, and the client operates in five states with different shops and establishments rules on working hours, leave and women working at night. Updating it means knowing which parts changed in substance and which only changed their citation, and getting the state variations right. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the handbook and every policy together, and marks each provision as unchanged, recited to the new code, or changed in substance. It checks the state variations for each location you name and says where a state has not notified its rules under a code. Your positions go into a playbook once, such as what a POSH policy must say or how you handle notice pay, and every policy that comes in is read against them. The revised handbook comes back as tracked changes in Word. Example output: - Documents read: Handbook of 64 pages and 11 standalone policies - Changed in substance: Grievance procedure: a Grievance Redressal Committee is required under the Industrial Relations Code for 20 or more workers - Citation only: Maternity leave of 26 weeks, now under the Code on Social Security - State variation: Night shifts for women in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu: consent and safeguards differ, both listed - Deliverable: Revised handbook in Word with tracked changes and a table of what changed and why Prompt to try (Handbook update): Read this handbook and the policies in the project. Mark each provision as unchanged, needing only a new citation to the labour codes, or changed in substance, check the state rules for Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, and redraft the handbook as tracked changes. Sample documents (2): Employee Handbook (2019 edition) – Extracts for Revision; Certified Standing Orders – Chakan Plant (extract). #### Running a POSH inquiry to the timetable Problem: A complaint reaches the Internal Committee, and the POSH Act sets the clock: a complaint within three months of the incident, extendable by three more, an inquiry completed within ninety days, the report within ten days of completion, and the employer's action within sixty days of the report. Miss a step and the outcome is challenged on process, whatever the merits. The committee members are not lawyers, the witness statements arrive as WhatsApp screenshots and handwritten notes, and the report has to be reasoned on the evidence. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the complaint, the reply and the evidence, including scans and images, and builds the timetable from the date of the complaint with every statutory step. It checks the committee's constitution under section 4, with the presiding officer and the external member. It prepares the notices, the questions for each witness, and a draft report that sets each allegation against the evidence for and against it with the page. The findings stay with the committee: Justis organises the record they decide on. Example output: - Complaint: Received Tuesday 4 August 2026; incident of 20 June 2026, within three months under s.9 - Committee: Presiding officer and external member in place; one member's term expired, flagged for reconstitution - Inquiry to finish: Within 90 days under s.11(4): by Monday 2 November 2026 - After the report: Report within 10 days of completion; employer acts within 60 days of receiving it under s.13 - Deliverables: Notices, witness questions and a draft report with each allegation tied to the evidence Prompt to try (POSH timetable): Read the complaint, the reply and the evidence in this matter. Check the Internal Committee's constitution under the POSH Act, build the inquiry timetable from the date of the complaint with every statutory step, and prepare the witness questions and a draft report structure tied to the evidence. Sample documents (3): POSH Complaint and Internal Committee Record – Priya Deshmukh v. Vikram Sethi; POSH Inquiry – Respondent's Reply and Evidence Bundle; The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. #### Checking the disciplinary file before the order Problem: A dismissal for misconduct is usually lost on process. The chargesheet was vague, the documents relied on were never given to the employee, the enquiry report was not shared before the penalty, or the misconduct is not one the certified standing orders list. By the time the file reaches the lawyer, the order is drafted and management wants it issued the same week. How Justis handles it: Upload the file. Justis lays out every step in sequence, from complaint to show cause, reply, chargesheet, enquiry, findings and penalty, each with the document behind it, and checks it against the standing orders and the principles of natural justice. It marks the gaps a tribunal would find, says which can still be cured before the order issues, and drafts the curing step, such as the notice sharing the enquiry report and inviting a reply on penalty. Example output: - File read: 23 documents, 3 sets of handwritten enquiry minutes read by OCR - Sequence: 12 steps from complaint of 03.02.2026 to the draft order - Gap: Enquiry findings not shared with the employee before the penalty - Gap: Chargesheet cites 'gross misconduct' without the clause of the standing orders - Curable now: Share the report and invite a reply on penalty; draft notice ready in Word Prompt to try (Process check): Lay out every step of this disciplinary file in date order with the document behind each. Check it against the certified standing orders and natural justice, mark every gap a tribunal would find, and tell me which gaps can still be cured before the termination order issues. Sample documents (2): Disciplinary File – Imran Shaikh, Storekeeper, Chakan Plant; Certified Standing Orders – Chakan Plant (extract). #### Pricing and papering an exit or a retrenchment Problem: The client wants to let twelve people go by the end of the month and asks what it costs and what could go wrong. The answer depends on who is a worker under the Industrial Relations Code, how long each has served, what counts as wages, the size of the establishment and whether prior permission is needed. The full and final settlement then has to be paid within two working days under the Code on Wages, and the settlement agreement has to release the right claims without overreaching. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the appointment letters, salary records and attendance, sorts each person as a worker or not, and computes the cost line by line: notice pay, retrenchment compensation, the re-skilling fund contribution, gratuity and leave encashment, each with the provision behind it. It checks the retrenchment conditions, including notice to the appropriate government and last come, first go, drafts the notices and the settlement agreements, and exports the cost table to Excel. Example output: - Employee: Technician, a worker under the IR Code; 6 years 8 months' service; monthly wages ₹39,000 - Notice pay: One month: ₹39,000 - Retrenchment compensation: 15 days' pay for 7 years, part year over six months counted: ₹1,57,500 - Re-skilling fund: 15 days' last drawn wages paid to the fund: ₹22,500 - Gratuity: 15 days' wages for 7 years under the Code on Social Security: ₹1,57,500 - Timing: Terminated Wednesday 9 September 2026; wages due by Friday 11 September under the Code on Wages Prompt to try (Exit cost): From the appointment letters and salary records in this matter, tell me who is a worker under the Industrial Relations Code, compute the cost of retrenching each person line by line with the provision for each, say whether prior permission is needed, and draft the notices. Sample documents (3): Sriperumbudur Unit – Proposed Retrenchment List, Salary and Seniority Register; Appointment Letter (Template A, 2016) – Karthik Selvaraj, CNC Technician; The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (Gazette of India). #### A senior employee leaves for a competitor Problem: The head of sales resigns and joins a competitor a week later. The client wants an injunction on the non-compete, and the question is what will actually hold. A restraint after employment is void under section 27 of the Contract Act, but confidentiality, non-solicitation and garden leave during the notice period are different questions. The evidence that matters is on the laptop and in the email logs, and the client has sent a folder of four hundred exported files. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the contract, the policies the employee signed and the exit evidence, and separates the covenants that hold from the ones that will not. It searches the case law on each and quotes the paragraph, with a link to the judgment. It builds the evidence table, such as what was downloaded and when, drafts the cease and desist notice for you to send, and drafts the suit and the interim application if the client wants to go to court. Example output: - Non-compete: Clause 14: 24 months after exit; unenforceable under s.27 Contract Act - Non-solicit: Clause 15: customers and staff for 12 months; arguable, with authorities - Confidentiality: Clause 12: enforceable, no time limit on trade secrets - Evidence: Customer list exported on the last working day, from the access log at p. 38 - Deliverables: Cease and desist notice, and a draft interim application on clauses 12 and 15 Prompt to try (Covenant strategy): Read the employment contract, the signed policies and the exit evidence. Tell me which restrictive covenants are enforceable, with authority for each, set out the evidence of any breach with the page, and draft a cease and desist notice on the covenants that hold. Sample documents (2): Employment Agreement (Template C, 2023) – Anirudh Rao, Head of Sales; Exit Evidence – IT Forensic Summary on Anirudh Rao (with access log extracts). #### Answering a claim before the conciliation officer or tribunal Problem: A dismissed worker raises an industrial dispute claiming reinstatement with back wages. The claim statement is long on grievance and short on dates, and the client's file is spread across HR, payroll and the plant. The reply has to take every averment, raise the preliminary objections, such as whether the claimant is a worker at all, and build the record the employer will lead evidence on. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the claim statement against the employer's file and builds a paragraph-wise reply table: admitted, denied or not within knowledge, with the document supporting each. It tests the preliminary objections on the record, including the claimant's duties and wages for the worker question. It drafts the reply in your format with the list of documents, and prepares the list of dates the tribunal will want. Example output: - Claim read: 31 paragraphs, 9 annexures, 2 in Hindi - Paragraph-wise reply: Admitted 7, denied 19, not within knowledge 5 - Preliminary objection: Claimant supervised a team and drew ₹42,000 a month, above the IR Code's ₹18,000 line for supervisors - Record: Appointment letter, three warning letters, enquiry file, F&F receipt - Deliverable: Reply in Word with list of dates and list of documents Prompt to try (Reply to claim): Read the claim statement and the employer's documents in this matter. Prepare a paragraph-wise reply table with the supporting document for each, test whether the claimant is a worker under the Industrial Relations Code, and draft the reply with a list of dates. Sample documents (4): Statement of Claim – Suresh Kadam v. Vardhan Autotech Components Pvt. Ltd. (Industrial Tribunal, Pune); Employer's Record – Suresh Kadam (promotion, warnings, enquiry, dismissal, F&F); Certified Standing Orders – Chakan Plant (extract); The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (Gazette of India). #### Appointment letters from an HR data sheet Problem: HR sends a sheet of new joiners with salaries and dates and wants the letters the same day. The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code requires a letter of appointment for every employee, and since the codes came into force each letter has to state wages on the Code on Wages definition, treat fixed-term staff on par, and say correctly whether the Standing Orders apply. The data sheet is where the mistakes start: a salary built on a low basic, a supervisor treated as a worker, a joining date nobody has confirmed. Copying it into the template carries every one of them into a signed letter. How Justis handles it: Attach the data sheet with your appointment letter template. Justis drafts one letter per joiner in Word on the template, choosing the template's options from each person's facts: permanent or fixed-term, worker or supervisory. It computes the statutory wages figure for each person, flags where the sheet's numbers conflict with the codes, and leaves a missing fact bracketed and listed rather than invented. Example output: - Data sheet: 4 joiners at the Chakan and Sriperumbudur units - Wages: Quality engineer at ₹45,000: HRA and conveyance are ₹24,750, 55% of pay; the ₹2,250 above half is added back, so wages are ₹22,500, not the ₹13,500 basic payroll uses for PF - Fixed term: 18-month contract: letter states parity with permanent staff and pro rata gratuity after one year under section 53 of the Code on Social Security - Not a worker: Shift supervisor with wages of ₹21,600 who approves leave and overtime: outside 'worker' in section 2(zr) of the IR Code, so the conduct clause uses the Code of Conduct, not the Standing Orders - Missing: HR executive's joining date is blank in the sheet; left bracketed in her letter and listed for HR - Deliverable: Four appointment letters in Word and a one-page note of what HR must confirm or change Prompt to try (Appointment letters): Draft an appointment letter in Word for each joiner in this HR data sheet, on our APT-2026 template. Pick the permanent or fixed-term option and the worker or supervisory option from each person's facts, compute wages under section 2(y) of the Code on Wages from the salary break-up, flag anything in the sheet that conflicts with the labour codes, and leave missing facts bracketed with a list for HR. Sample documents (2): HR data sheet – new joiners, October 2026 (Chakan and Sriperumbudur); Appointment Letter Template APT-2026 (Labour Codes version, with drafting notes). #### Redlining a senior employee's separation agreement Problem: A senior executive is leaving by mutual consent and her lawyer has sent back the separation agreement. The counter-draft reads reasonably until it is checked against the numbers: the gratuity is on the wrong base, the tax falls on the company, and the stock options include a grant that was never made. The client's instructions are in a note from the CHRO, the facts are in HRMS and the ESOP plan, and the redline has to go back before the signing date. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the counter-draft against the client's instructions, the service and pay facts and the ESOP plan, and redlines the draft as tracked changes with a comment on each change giving the reason and the figure. It recomputes each payment from the record, separates what the law requires from what is negotiable, and writes a short note for the CHRO on what is still open. Example output: - Gratuity: Clause 3.2 computes ₹12,92,308 on CTC of ₹3,20,000; on wages of ₹1,60,000 for 7 completed years it is ₹6,46,154 - Tax: Clause 3.4 makes every payment net of tax with the company grossing up; instructions are ₹18,00,000 gross, subject to TDS - Stock options: Clause 4.3 vests 10,000 more options, including 6,000 the committee never granted; instructions allow the 4,000 due on 01.12.2026 - Release: Clause 6 releases only the executive; redrafted as a mutual release with carve-outs for fraud and confidentiality - Also marked: Notice pay of ₹9,60,000 for a notice already served (cl. 3.1), laptop kept as a gift (cl. 8), confidentiality limited to 12 months (cl. 9), one-sided non-disparagement (cl. 7) - Deliverable: Tracked changes with comments on the counsel's .docx, and a half-page note for the CHRO Prompt to try (Separation redline): Redline the employee's counter-draft of the separation agreement in this matter against the CHRO's instructions, the service and pay facts and the ESOP extract. Recompute every payment from the record, mark up the draft as tracked changes with a comment giving the reason and the figure for each change, and write a short note for the CHRO on what is still open. Sample documents (2): Separation Agreement – Meera Iyer and Vardhan Autotech (employee's counsel's counter-draft); CHRO's instructions for the separation of Meera Iyer, VP – Supply Chain (with service, pay and ESOP extracts). #### Completing EPF nomination forms for new joiners Problem: Every new joiner fills EPF Form 2, the nomination and declaration under the EPF Scheme and the Employees' Pension Scheme. HR collects family details at induction and someone types them into the form, usually exactly as the employee gave them. A nomination that breaks the Scheme's rules is discovered only when the member dies and the family's claim is held up: a married member who nominates his brother, a minor nominee with no guardian, shares that do not add up. How Justis handles it: Attach the blank Form 2 in Word and the induction declarations. Justis completes one form per joiner in the form's own layout, Parts A and B and the employer's certificate details, from the declarations. It checks each nomination against paragraph 61 of the EPF Scheme and the family definitions, and marks what the employee must correct before signing instead of writing an invalid nomination into the form. Example output: - Forms: Form 2 (Revised) completed for 3 joiners in Word, Parts A and B and the employer's certificate details - Invalid nominee: Married operator nominates his brother for 100% of PF; with a family, a nomination outside it is invalid under paragraph 61, so Part A is left for him to re-nominate - Minor nominee: Engineer's son, born 03.02.2022, nominated for 50%; column 6 needs a guardian and none is named - Shares: HR executive's nomination gives her mother 60% and father 30%: 90% in all, to be corrected before signing - Pension: Part B lists spouse and children only; the unmarried joiner has no family for Part B, so the no-family certificate applies and her widow-pension nominee is recorded - Deliverable: Three completed forms in Word and a list of corrections for HR to take to each joiner Prompt to try (Fill Form 2): Complete EPF Form 2 (Revised) in Word for each joiner in the induction declarations in this matter, using the blank form's own layout for Parts A and B and the employer's certificate. Check each nomination against paragraph 61 of the EPF Scheme, 1952 and the family definitions, do not write in a nomination that would be invalid, and give me a list of the corrections each joiner must make before signing. Sample documents (2): EPF Form 2 (Revised) – Nomination and Declaration Form (blank, Word version); New joiners' family and nomination declarations (Chakan Plant, October 2026). #### Reading exit interviews for what HR missed Problem: Exit interviews are filed and forgotten. HR reads them for attrition reasons, but the forms also record allegations about a supervisor, claims for unpaid overtime and an engineer leaving for a competitor with drawings on a personal drive. Each of those is a legal issue with a clock running: a POSH complaint window, a wage claim that will reach the inspector, a confidentiality breach that needs a letter now. How Justis handles it: Upload the month's exit interviews and run a tabular review. Each form is a row; the columns ask the same questions of every one: the reason for leaving, any allegation of harassment or unfair treatment, dues claimed, the next employer, company data still held, and whether the form is signed. Every cell quotes the form. Sort by the issues column and ask Justis to draft the follow-up for the rows that need one. Example output: - Forms read: 4 exit interviews from September 2026 - Harassment: Quality inspector names her line supervisor for remarks and two requests in August to stay back alone; HR's remark covers transport only. She has not complained; the Internal Committee route is to be put to her - Dues: Maintenance technician says overtime was paid at the single rate: ₹5,750 short in each of July and August, ₹11,500 in all - Data: Design engineer joining a competitor holds fixture drawings FX-200 to FX-260 on a personal drive; HR marked the exit cleared - Unsigned: One form has no employee signature - Deliverable: Grid with the quote in every cell, and draft follow-up letters for the three issues Prompt to try (Exit interview review): Run a tabular review of every exit interview in this matter. For each, give the reason for leaving, any allegation of harassment, discrimination or unfair treatment with the person named, any dues or payments claimed with the amount, the next employer and whether it is a competitor, any company data or property the employee still holds, and whether the employee signed the form. Quote the form in every cell. Opens in: Tabular Review, one column per question (Last working day, Reason for leaving, Allegations, Dues claimed, Next employer, Joining a competitor, Company data still held, Signatures). Sample documents (4): Exit interview – Ankita More, Quality Inspector, Chakan Plant; Exit interview – Sandeep Gholap, Maintenance Technician, Chakan Plant; Exit interview – Divya Raman, Design Engineer, Sriperumbudur Unit; Exit interview – Mohit Saxena, Sales Executive, Pune Corporate Office. #### Checking the wage register before the inspector does Problem: An Inspector-cum-Facilitator under the Code on Wages asks to see the wage, overtime and deduction registers for the last three months. The notice follows a workers' complaint, and the registers will be read for exactly what the complaint alleges. The plant's payroll may have changed a practice to save cost without anyone asking legal, and by the inspection date the arrears and the explanation both need to be ready. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the registers and payroll circulars against the Code on Wages and the OSH Code: the overtime rate, the date wages were paid, and the deductions as a share of each worker's wages. Each finding cites the register row and the provision. It computes the arrears worker by worker, prepares the list of records the notice asks for with what is missing, and drafts the reply to the inspector for you to settle. The computation exports to Excel. Example output: - Records read: August 2026 register for 8 workers, the overtime circular of 01.07.2026 and the inspector's notice - Overtime: 3 workers paid overtime at the single hourly rate under the July circular; section 27 of the OSH Code requires twice the rate of wages. August shortfall ₹11,525, ₹5,750 of it for one technician - Timing: August wages credited on 10.09.2026; under section 17 of the Code on Wages monthly wages are due before the end of 7 September - Deductions: One operator's deductions are ₹14,200 of ₹24,000, 59%: above the 50% limit in section 18, and the ₹2,000 damage recovery has no order on file - Inspection: Records for June to August to be produced on 12.10.2026; attendance in-out times and the advance schedule are not in the file - Deliverable: Arrears sheet in Excel, a compliance note for the client and a draft reply to the inspector Prompt to try (Wage register check): Read the wage and overtime register, the payroll circular and the inspector's notice in this matter. Check the overtime rate, the date of payment and the deductions for each worker against the Code on Wages, 2019 and the OSH Code, 2020, citing the register row and the provision for every finding. Compute the arrears worker by worker in a spreadsheet, list the records the notice asks for and what is missing, and draft a reply to the inspector. Sample documents (3): Chakan Plant – wage, overtime and deductions register, August 2026 (extract for 8 workers); Inspector-cum-Facilitator's notice to produce wage and overtime records – Chakan Plant; Exit interview – Sandeep Gholap, Maintenance Technician, Chakan Plant. Questions: - Q: Does it work under the new labour codes or the old Acts? A: Under the codes in force from 21 November 2025: the Code on Wages, the Industrial Relations Code, the Code on Social Security and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code. Where a judgment or a document relies on an old Act, it names the provision of the code that replaced it. - Q: How does it handle state rules and standing orders? A: It reads the state rules and the certified standing orders you add to the matter and searches the published ones, and applies them for each location you name. Where a state has not notified its rules, it says so rather than assuming the central position. - Q: Can it read handwritten enquiry minutes and chat screenshots? A: Yes. Scans, photographs and screenshots are read with OCR, including Hindi, and it tells you when it is reading one so you know transcription errors are possible. Where an entry is illegible it says so instead of guessing. - Q: Will it tell the client whether to dismiss someone? A: No. It sets out what the record supports, where the process has gaps and what each option costs. The advice to the client and the decision stay with you. - Q: Can it compute gratuity and retrenchment cost? A: Yes. It reads the service and salary records and computes each line with the provision it rests on and the working shown, so you can check the arithmetic and the wage definition it used. - Q: What should an employment lawyer try first? A: A tabular review of a contract set you already know. Ask for notice, non-compete, wage structure and termination grounds across twenty contracts, check a few rows, then run it on the rest. ### How healthcare legal teams use Justis AI URL: https://askjustis.com/use-cases/healthcare Hospital legal work is a reading problem. A negligence notice arrives and the answer is in a case sheet of three hundred handwritten pages. An inspection is due and the licences for six units sit in six folders with six renewal dates. A trial site agreement, a consultant's contract and a device supply agreement all wait on the same two people, and each one answers to a different regulator. Justis reads the record with you. Upload the file to a project and it reads every page, handwritten notes and scans included, sets the facts against the rule that applies, and drafts the reply or the redline. Every conclusion carries the document and page it came from, and where an entry is illegible or a point of law is unsettled, it says so rather than filling the gap. Try this first: Take a closed negligence matter whose outcome you know. Upload the case sheet, the consent forms and the notice, and ask which allegations the record supports, with the page for each. Compare the answer with how the matter actually went. That tells you in half an hour how far to trust it on the next one. #### A negligence notice, read against the case sheet Problem: A legal notice or a consumer complaint alleges a sequence: delayed diagnosis, no consent, a missed referral, a discharge too early. The answer is in the case sheet, the nursing notes, the anaesthesia record and the discharge summary, much of it handwritten, and the treating team remembers it differently from how it was written. Under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 the written version is due within thirty days of service, extendable by no more than fifteen, so there is little time to read the record twice. How Justis handles it: Upload the complaint and the medical record. Justis reads both, runs OCR on the handwritten pages and tells you when it is doing so, then sets each allegation against what the record shows, with the page on each side. It marks entries that are undated, overwritten or missing, which matter as much as what the record says, checks the forum's pecuniary jurisdiction and the limitation period, and drafts the written version in your format. Example output: - Record read: Case sheet of 286 pages, 212 handwritten, read by OCR - Allegation holds: No fresh consent for the second procedure on 06.02.2026; only the first consent is on file (p. 41) - Allegation fails: Referral to cardiology within 36 hours, recorded in the nursing notes at p. 118 - Record risk: Two progress notes undated and one overwritten, pp. 131 and 134 - Forum and time: Served 02.09.2026: written version due 02.10.2026, outer limit 17.10.2026 - Deliverable: Draft written version in Word with a list of dates Prompt to try (Allegations against the record): Read the complaint and the full medical record in this matter. For each allegation, say whether the record supports it, with the page on each side, list any undated, overwritten or missing entries, and compute the deadline for the written version from service on 2 September 2026. Sample documents (2): Consumer complaint alleging medical negligence (A.K. v. Shashwat Care Hospital); Case sheet extract and discharge summary, patient A.K. (IP No. 26/1093). #### Auditing consent forms across departments Problem: Each department has its own consent forms, some printed years ago, some translated by whoever was available. Consent is specific to the procedure consented to, and a form that says 'any further procedure the doctor considers necessary' does not protect the hospital when the further procedure is the one in dispute. Nobody has read all of them side by side, and a gap is usually found by the claimant's lawyer first. How Justis handles it: Tabular review reads every consent form in one pass and asks the same questions of each: the procedure named, risks and alternatives set out, language versions, the witness line, and blanket clauses. Each cell cites the page. Justis then drafts a revised template for each department, in English and Hindi where you need both, and a short note for the clinical teams on what changed and why. Example output: - Forms read: 38 consent forms across 11 departments, 14 scanned - Blanket clause: 17 forms authorise 'any further procedure', flagged for procedure-specific wording - Risks and alternatives: 9 forms list neither - Language: Hindi version of the anaesthesia form omits two risks listed in English - Deliverables: Grid in Excel with a cited cell for each answer, and revised templates in Word Prompt to try (Consent audit): Run a tabular review of every consent form in this matter. For each, extract the procedure named, the risks and alternatives disclosed, the language versions and any blanket authorisation, compare the Hindi and English versions, and flag every form that would not support procedure-specific consent. Sample documents (1): Departmental consent form templates (compilation). #### The licence register for every unit Problem: A hospital runs on registrations and clearances: the clinical establishment registration under the state Act, biomedical waste authorisation, the fire NOC, AERB licences for imaging, PC-PNDT registration, drug licences for the pharmacy and the blood centre licence. Each has its own renewal date and its own conditions. They are scanned into different folders by different units, and the register that tracks them is a spreadsheet last updated before the new wing opened. How Justis handles it: Upload the licences and tabular review returns a register: the licence, the unit, the authority, the expiry date and the conditions attached, with the document and page behind each row. Justis flags what has lapsed or will lapse within the window you choose, lists the conditions a unit may not be meeting, and drafts the renewal cover letters for your team to file. Example output: - Documents read: 54 licences and clearances across 4 units - Lapsed: Fire NOC for the main block, expired 12.02.2026 - Due within 90 days: AERB licence for the CT unit and the biomedical waste authorisation - Condition at risk: PC-PNDT registration lists two machines; the imaging inventory shows three - Deliverables: Licence register in Excel and renewal cover letters in Word Prompt to try (Licence register): Read every licence and registration in this matter and build a register by unit: licence, issuing authority, expiry date and attached conditions, with the page for each. Flag anything lapsed or expiring in the next 90 days and any condition the unit may not be meeting. Sample documents (1): Licences, registrations and clearances — all units (scanned bundle). #### Consultant and doctor engagement agreements Problem: Visiting consultants are engaged on dozens of agreements: fixed retainers, fee-for-service, revenue shares. A share tied to referred diagnostics looks like a commission for referrals, which the professional conduct regulations for doctors prohibit, and an uncapped indemnity for clinical acts puts the hospital's balance sheet behind a doctor it does not employ. The agreements were negotiated one at a time, and nobody knows how many carry which terms. How Justis handles it: Your positions go into a playbook once: how compensation may be structured, who indemnifies whom and up to what cap, what insurance the doctor carries, and how patient data may be used. Every agreement is read against it, the offending clause is quoted back, and your position is already drafted. Across the whole set, tabular review shows which agreements carry which terms, and the redlines arrive as tracked changes in Word. Example output: - Agreements read: 126 consultant agreements on 5 templates - Referral-linked pay: 8 agreements pay a share of revenue from referred imaging, flagged under the professional conduct regulations - Indemnity: 31 agreements have the hospital indemnifying clinical acts without a cap - Insurance: 19 agreements silent on professional indemnity cover - Deliverables: Grid in Excel, and tracked-change redlines in Word against your playbook Prompt to try (Playbook review): Review every consultant agreement in this matter against our playbook. Flag compensation linked to referrals, one-sided or uncapped indemnities, missing professional indemnity cover and patient data terms, quote each clause with its page, and redline to our positions as tracked changes. Sample documents (2): Visiting consultant agreement — Dr. R. Mehrotra (Orthopaedics), renewal draft; Hospital contracting playbook — consultants and procurement. #### Clinical trial agreements at the site Problem: A sponsor sends a clinical trial agreement drafted for another jurisdiction. The New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules 2019 require free medical management for trial-related injury and compensation for injury or death as the Central Licensing Authority determines, and the draft caps the sponsor's liability, routes compensation through the site's insurance and says nothing about the ethics committee's registration. The site signs as a party, and its liability for a sponsor's obligations is the question the legal team is asked to answer by Friday. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the agreement, the protocol synopsis, the insurance certificate and the ethics committee approval together, and checks each obligation against the Rules: who pays for medical management and compensation, the ethics committee's registration, trial registration before enrolment, and the site's record retention duties. It marks the clauses that shift a sponsor obligation to the site, drafts the redline and a short note for the investigator on what the site is agreeing to. Example output: - Documents read: Agreement of 48 pages, protocol synopsis, insurance certificate, EC approval - Compensation: Clause 11 caps sponsor liability at the budget; the Rules leave the amount to the licensing authority - Medical management: Clause 11.3 routes costs through the site's insurance; flagged as a sponsor obligation - Ethics committee: Registration number not in the approval letter; asked for before signing - Deliverables: Redline in Word and a one-page note for the principal investigator Prompt to try (Trial agreement review): Read the clinical trial agreement, the protocol synopsis, the insurance certificate and the ethics committee approval. Check each obligation against the New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules 2019, mark every clause that shifts a sponsor obligation to the site, and redline it. Sample documents (3): Clinical trial agreement, Protocol VX-217 (sponsor's draft); Trial site pack, Protocol VX-217 — protocol synopsis, insurance certificate, ethics committee approval; New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules, 2019 (Gazette notification G.S.R. 227(E)). #### Supply agreements for drugs and devices Problem: Procurement signs supply agreements for implants, consumables and equipment on the vendor's paper. Under the Medical Devices Rules 2017 every class of device now needs a licence to import or manufacture, and drugs move only through licensed wholesalers under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. A vendor without the right licence leaves the hospital holding stock it should not have bought. The agreements also rarely say who manages a recall, who bears the cost, or what happens to traceability records for implants. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the agreement with the vendor's licences and checks that the licence covers the product, its class and the premises, and is current. It tests the agreement against your procurement playbook on recall, warranty, traceability, indemnity and liability caps. It lists what to ask the vendor for before signing and drafts the redline in Word. Example output: - Product: Orthopaedic implants, Class C devices, imported - Licence: Vendor's import licence covers the knee system but not the new hip range listed in Schedule 2 - Recall: Agreement silent on recall cost and notification - Traceability: No obligation to supply lot and serial numbers for each implant - Deliverables: List of documents to request from the vendor, and a redline in Word Prompt to try (Supply agreement check): Read this supply agreement and the vendor's licences. Check that each product listed is covered by a current licence under the Medical Devices Rules 2017 or the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for its class, test the agreement against our playbook on recall, traceability and indemnity, and redline it. Sample documents (2): Orthopaedic implant supply agreement with vendor's licences (vendor's draft); Hospital contracting playbook — consultants and procurement. #### A patient data breach Problem: The IT team reports unauthorised access to the lab system. CERT-In's 2022 directions require the incident to be reported within six hours of noticing it, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 and the Rules 2025 add intimation to the Data Protection Board and to each affected patient as their obligations come into force. The facts arrive in pieces: a log export, a vendor's email, a count of records that changes every hour. Someone has to keep the timeline straight while it is still moving. How Justis handles it: Justis builds the incident timeline from the documents as they land, marks the rule each step answers to and the time it was due, and says which obligations apply today and which apply once the DPDP Rules take effect. It reads the vendor contract for notification and indemnity terms, drafts the reports and the patient notice for your team to review and send, and keeps the record of what was known when. Example output: - Detected: Unauthorised access noticed 12.01.2026 at 09:40, from the SOC ticket - CERT-In: Report due within six hours; draft ready, facts still unconfirmed marked - Scope: 2,140 patient records, including lab results, from the log export - Vendor: Lab software contract: vendor must notify within 24 hours; notified on day 3, clause 9.2 - Deliverables: Incident timeline, draft CERT-In report, draft patient notice, note on DPDP duties Prompt to try (Breach timeline): Build the incident timeline from the documents in this matter, with the rule each step answers to and when it was due. Say which reporting obligations apply now under CERT-In's directions and the DPDP Act, read the vendor contract for notification terms, and draft the reports for our review. Sample documents (1): Laboratory system breach — incident file (SOC ticket, log summary, vendor emails, contract extract). #### Empanelment agreements with insurers and TPAs Problem: Cashless empanelment comes on the insurer's paper, and the hospital signs because the alternative is losing insured patients. The draft decides who pays for the bed while a discharge waits for approval, how long payment takes, how far back an audit can reach, and whether the hospital can be dropped from the network on a week's notice. The terms are rarely read against the hospital's own positions or against what IRDAI already requires of the insurer, so the same concessions are made agreement after agreement. How Justis handles it: Your positions go into a playbook once: payment days and interest, tariff revision, audit window and set-off, de-empanelment process, indemnity, patient data and disputes. Justis reads the draft against it and against IRDAI's Master Circular on Health Insurance Business, quotes each departing clause and marks it as a tracked change in Word, with a comment the insurer's network team can read. It also lists what to ask for that the draft leaves out, and keeps the fallbacks you allow apart from the points that go to the CFO. Example output: - Discharge authorisation: Clause 3.4 gives the TPA 6 hours and bars charging for the wait; the Master Circular expects 3 hours - Payment: Clause 5.3: 45 days and no interest for delay; your position is 30 days with interest - Audit and set-off: Clause 7.2: audit up to 36 months after payment, recovered by set-off against any other claim - De-empanelment: Clause 9.1: 7 days' notice at the insurer's discretion, no show cause, name shared with other insurers - Patient data: Clause 11.1 opens the Hospital Information System for all patients, not only the insured patient - Disputes: Clause 14.2: sole arbitrator named by the insurer's MD, contrary to Perkins Eastman (2019); seat Mumbai - Deliverable: Tracked-change redline in Word with a comment on each change Prompt to try (Empanelment redline): Review the insurer's provider service agreement against our empanelment positions note. For each clause that departs from our standard position, quote it, say which position it breaches and whether our fallback covers it, check the cashless timelines against IRDAI's Master Circular on Health Insurance Business, and redline the agreement as tracked changes with a comment explaining each change. Sample documents (2): Provider service agreement with Kaveri General Insurance and MediSure Health TPA (insurer's draft); Empanelment positions — insurer and TPA agreements (hospital legal team). #### A case sheet audit before the records go out Problem: When a family asks for the records, the request often says why: they are thinking of a complaint. The hospital has to supply the copy within 72 hours under the professional conduct regulations for doctors, and it must supply the record as it stands, gaps included. What the legal team needs before then is a list of what the record will show a claimant's lawyer: a consent signed after the incision, a transfusion with no consent, a discharge summary that contradicts the nursing notes. How Justis handles it: Upload the in-patient file. Justis reads the consent forms, the anaesthesia and operation notes, the surgical safety checklist, the nursing and transfusion records and the discharge summary, sets the times and entries against each other, and lists every gap with the page on each side. It drafts an internal note for the medical superintendent on the risks and a covering letter to release the records, and it never suggests changing an entry: the record goes out as it is. Example output: - Record read: 104 pages, 73 handwritten, read by OCR - Consent timing: Consent for LSCS timed 14:20 (p. 22); spinal at 13:55 and skin incision at 14:05 (p. 31) - Transfusion: Two units of PRBC given with a febrile reaction (pp. 58, 74); no transfusion consent anywhere in the file - Discharge summary: Says 'uneventful, no blood transfusion' (p. 96) against the PPH of about 1,600 ml and two units given - Other entries: Surgical safety checklist sign-out and counts blank (p. 30); progress note overwritten and unsigned (p. 41) - Deadline: Request received 29.09.2026 at 11:30; copy due by 02.10.2026, 11:30 - Deliverables: Internal risk note and covering letter for release of the records, in Word Prompt to try (Case sheet audit): Read the in-patient file in this matter. Set the consent, anaesthesia record, operation note, safety checklist, nursing and transfusion records and discharge summary against each other and list every gap, inconsistency, overwriting or missing entry with the page on each side. Compute when the copy is due on the family's request, and draft an internal risk note and a covering letter releasing the records as they stand. Sample documents (1): In-patient record extract, Smt. S.D. (IP No. 26/2417) — emergency LSCS. #### A patient privacy notice and consent under the DPDP Act Problem: The registration form most hospitals use was printed years ago: one pre-ticked box for treatment, sharing with partners and promotional SMS, in English only, signed by whoever brings the patient. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 asks for an itemised notice, consent that is free and specific, withdrawable at any time, offered in English or a language of the Eighth Schedule, and verifiable consent of a parent for a child. The facts sit with IT and the records department: what is collected, who it goes to, how long it is kept. Someone has to turn that into a notice patients can read at the counter. How Justis handles it: Upload the data inventory and the current form. Justis reads both, marks what the Act and the DPDP Rules 2025 require that the form does not do, and drafts the privacy notice and a revised consent block in English and Hindi, with treatment consent kept apart from marketing. It lists the processor contracts that need data terms and answers the team's questions with the section for each, saying which duties apply today and which apply when the Rules' phased dates arrive. Example output: - Current form: One pre-ticked box bundles treatment, sharing with 'partners' and promotional messages, and says consent cannot be withdrawn - Language: English only, while 61% of registrations are at the Hindi help desk - Children: 1,940 paediatric registrations a month with no parent or guardian consent step (section 9) - Processors: Ojas Diagnostics and CareConnect SMS receive patient data with no data processing terms - Retention: Marketing database of about 1.2 lakh mobiles kept indefinitely; never purged - Deliverables: Privacy notice and consent block in English and Hindi, and a note on processor contracts, in Word Prompt to try (Patient privacy notice): Read our patient data inventory and the registration form we use today. List every point where the form falls short of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 and the DPDP Rules 2025, with the section, say which duties apply today and which apply later, and draft a patient privacy notice and a revised consent block in English and Hindi, keeping treatment consent separate from marketing and adding a parent or guardian consent step for children. Sample documents (2): Patient personal data inventory (IT and Medical Records, September 2026); OPD and IPD patient registration form in use (scanned, form REG-01 rev. 2019). #### Filling the biomedical waste authorisation form Problem: Renewing the biomedical waste authorisation means Form II under rule 10 of the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules 2016, and the answers come from four people: the infection control officer's waste figures, the facilities manager's equipment list, the consents in the legal file and the bed count. The figures arrive per month while the form asks per day, the checklist says every consent is valid when one has lapsed, and a show cause notice from the last cycle is filed under 'remarks' though the form asks for it. How Justis handles it: Upload the blank Form II in Word and the data sheet. Justis fills every item from the data, converts the quantities to kg per day and shows the arithmetic, and marks each answer it could not take from the documents. Before the form is signed it lists what does not agree: figures that conflict with other registrations, consents that are not what the checklist says, and disclosures the form requires. Filing stays with your team. Example output: - Form filled: Form II, items 1 to 9, as a completed Word document with each source noted - Beds: Data sheet says 180 beds with the new wing; the clinical establishment registration says 150 and has not been amended - Air Act consent: Expired 31.03.2026, renewal applied 18.02.2026 and pending; the checklist calls it valid - Arithmetic: Red category 1,860 kg a month is 62 kg a day, not the 6.2 entered by Facilities - Item 8: Show cause notice of 14.03.2025 on mixed red and yellow waste must be disclosed, with the reply and closure - Gaps: GPS coordinates not recorded; item 4(ii) left for Facilities Prompt to try (Fill Form II): Fill the blank Form II under the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules 2016 from our renewal data sheet, as a completed Word document. Convert every quantity to kg per day with the working shown, tick the activities that apply to a hospital using a CBWTF, and list separately anything in the data that conflicts with our other registrations, any consent whose status is wrong, and every disclosure item 8 requires. Sample documents (3): Form II, Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules 2016 — application for authorisation or renewal (blank, Word); Bio-medical waste authorisation renewal — data sheet from the Infection Control and Facilities teams; Form II under the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 (official form, as published by a pollution control committee). #### Maintenance contracts for medical equipment Problem: The CT, MRI, cath lab and ventilators each run on a maintenance contract signed by Purchase or Biomedical Engineering. They differ on what matters: when they end and whether they renew themselves, what uptime is promised and what happens when it is missed, who runs the AERB quality assurance tests and the calibrations, and what the vendor may do with images it reaches remotely. Nobody holds them side by side, so an automatic renewal at a higher price, a helium refill billed outside the contract or a missing calibration certificate is found when the invoice or the surveyor arrives. How Justis handles it: Tabular review asks the same questions of every contract and returns a grid with a cited cell for each answer: term and renewal, uptime and remedy, exclusions, regulatory duties, remote access and patient data, price and escalation. Justis then lists the notice dates to diary, the clauses to renegotiate at renewal, and the contracts that let a vendor take patient images without data terms. Example output: - Contracts read: 4 maintenance contracts: CT, MRI, cath lab and 24 ICU ventilators - Renewal: CT contract ends 31.10.2026 and renews for a year at 8% more; the 60-day notice date, 01.09.2026, has passed - Uptime: Cath lab contract promises no uptime; CT remedy is only extra days of service - Exclusions: MRI helium refills and coldhead billed outside the contract; ₹6.85 lakh charged in February - Regulatory: Cath lab AERB QA shifted to the hospital; ventilator contract has no calibration duty, as the NABH observation notes - Patient data: Cath lab vendor may copy procedure images for training and product improvement; CT vendor may download images Prompt to try (Equipment contract grid): Run a tabular review of every equipment maintenance contract in this matter. For each, extract the equipment and vendor, the term with any automatic renewal and notice date, the uptime commitment and remedy, exclusions charged extra, who carries AERB quality assurance and calibration, remote access and patient data terms, and the price with escalation. Then list the notice dates to diary and the clauses to renegotiate. Opens in: Tabular Review, one column per question (Equipment and vendor, Automatic renewal, Non-renewal notice date, Uptime promised, Remedy for missed uptime, Exclusions charged extra, AERB QA and calibration, Remote access and patient data, Annual charge, Yearly escalation, Contract currency). Sample documents (4): Comprehensive maintenance contract — CT scanner (Arcadia Imaging Systems), 2023-2026; Comprehensive maintenance contract — 1.5T MRI (Northfield Medical Systems), 2025-2028; Annual maintenance contract — cardiac catheterisation laboratory (Vaidehi Cardio Technologies), 2024-2027; Annual maintenance contract — 24 ICU ventilators (Pranava Biomed), calendar year 2026. Questions: - Q: Can it give a medical opinion on the standard of care? A: No. It reads what the record says and sets it against the allegation, with the page on each side. Whether the care met the standard is for the clinicians and the expert you instruct, and the legal view is yours. - Q: Which healthcare laws does it work with? A: It searches the Acts, rules and regulator documents alongside the case law: the Clinical Establishments Act and the state Acts, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules 2019, the Medical Devices Rules 2017, the PC-PNDT Act, the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the DPDP Act 2023. Each conclusion links to the provision it rests on. - Q: Does it know which DPDP obligations apply today? A: It works from the DPDP Rules 2025 and their phased commencement, and says which duties apply on the date you ask and which apply later. Where a point is unsettled, it says so rather than asserting a position. - Q: Can it compare the Hindi and English versions of a form? A: Yes. It reads both, including scans, and lists every point where the two differ, with the page for each. - Q: Will it send the breach report or the reply for us? A: No. It drafts the report, the notice or the reply. Reviewing, signing and sending stay with your team. - Q: What should a healthcare legal team try first? A: A closed negligence matter whose outcome you know. Upload the record and the notice, ask which allegations the record supports with a page for each, and compare the answer with how the matter went. ### How banking and finance lawyers use Justis AI URL: https://askjustis.com/use-cases/banking-finance Banking work turns on documents signed years before anyone needed them. When the account turns NPA, the questions are all about paper: whether the charge was registered in time, whether the guarantee was authorised by the board, whether the balance sheet acknowledged the debt, whether the demand notice went to every guarantor. The file that answers them runs to two thousand pages and was put together by three different branches. Justis reads the file with you. Upload the loan file to a project and it reads every document, scans included, traces each security from creation to registration, and walks the default through SARFAESI, the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act and the IBC with the time limit for each step. Every conclusion carries the document and page it came from, and a gap is marked as a gap, not papered over. Try this first: Take a loan file you have already been through. Upload it to a project and run a tabular review asking, for each document, what security it creates and how it was perfected. Check the rows against your own note. That tells you in twenty minutes how far to trust it on a file you have not seen. #### Is every security actually perfected? Problem: The credit note says the facility is secured by a mortgage, a hypothecation, a share pledge and two guarantees. Whether it is depends on the paper: a charge filed with the Registrar within the time the Companies Act allows, the security interest registered with CERSAI, the pledge recorded with the depository, the mortgage deed stamped under the state stamp Act, the board resolution behind the corporate guarantee. A single defect is found at the worst moment, when the borrower's lawyer or the resolution professional reads the file. How Justis handles it: Upload the loan file and tabular review asks the same questions of every document: what security it creates, over what, the date of creation, whether the charge and the CERSAI filing were made in time, and whether the stamp duty and authorisations are on file. Each cell cites the page. Justis lists every gap with what would cure it, if anything still can, and exports the grid to Excel for the credit team. Example output: - File read: 41 documents, 1,960 pages, 12 scanned - Charge filing: Assignment of project contracts: charge filed 52 days after creation, within the extended period on additional fees - Share pledge: Pledge agreement signed; no depository confirmation of the pledge on file - Corporate guarantee: No board resolution; guarantee exceeds the s.186 limit, so a special resolution was needed - Deliverables: Security grid in Excel with a cited cell for each answer, and a cure list in Word Prompt to try (Perfection check): Run a tabular review of the loan file in this matter. For each document, extract the security created, the asset, the date of creation, the charge filing and CERSAI registration, stamp duty and authorisations, with the page for each, and list every gap in perfection with what would cure it. Sample documents (2): Kaveri Agro Loan File — Sanctions and Security Documents (2019-2022); Kaveri Agro — Security Perfection Register (ROC, CERSAI, Depository, Guarantor Approvals). #### Negotiating the facility agreement Problem: The borrower's counsel returns the facility agreement with two hundred comments. Some are fine, some quietly narrow the events of default, and a few move the bank off positions its credit policy does not allow, such as cross-default thresholds, the material adverse change clause, or penal charges that the RBI's directions no longer let a bank add to the interest rate. The term sheet, the sanction letter and the draft each say something slightly different, and the credit team wants to know which differences matter by the end of the day. How Justis handles it: Your bank's positions go into a playbook once. Justis reads the marked-up draft against the playbook and the sanction letter, and sorts every comment into accept, counter or reject, with the reason and the fallback drafted. It lists where the draft departs from the sanction terms, checks the penal charge and interest reset clauses against the RBI directions in force, and returns the counter-draft as tracked changes in Word. Example output: - Comments read: 214 comments on a ₹48 crore term loan agreement - Sorted: Accept 131, counter 62, reject 21, each with the playbook position - Departs from sanction: Security cover reduced from 1.5x to 1.25x in clause 8.2 - Penal charges: Borrower's wording capitalises penal charges into interest; replaced to meet the RBI directions - Deliverables: Issues list for the credit team and a counter-draft with tracked changes Prompt to try (Mark-up response): Read the borrower's mark-up of the facility agreement against our playbook and the sanction letter. Sort every comment into accept, counter or reject with the reason, list every departure from the sanction terms, check the penal charge clauses against current RBI directions, and return a counter-draft as tracked changes. Sample documents (3): Mulshi Crest — Facility Agreement Draft v3 with Borrower's Mark-up (18.09.2026); Narmada Commercial Bank — Corporate Term Loan Negotiation Playbook (2026); Mulshi Crest Hospitality — Sanction Letter for ₹48 Crore Term Loan (04.08.2026). #### Can the guarantors be held? Problem: The borrower is heading for insolvency and the recovery will come from the guarantors. A guarantor's liability is co-extensive with the principal debtor's under section 128 of the Contract Act, but it can be discharged by a variation of the contract made without the guarantor's consent, and a corporate guarantee given without the right resolution is open to challenge. The file has three restructurings, two top-ups and a change of promoter, and nobody has checked which of them each guarantor signed. How Justis handles it: Justis reads every guarantee and every later amendment, and builds a table of who consented to what. It flags variations a guarantor did not sign, checks whether each guarantee is continuing, and tests the corporate guarantees against sections 185 and 186 of the Companies Act and the resolutions on file. It sets out the route against each guarantor, including an application against a personal guarantor to a corporate debtor under Part III of the IBC, and drafts the invocation notices for you to send. Example output: - Guarantees: 2 personal, 1 corporate; all expressed as continuing - Variations: 2024 restructuring signed by both personal guarantors; 2025 top-up signed by only one - Corporate guarantee: Special resolution under s.186 on file, dated before execution - Route: Invoke all three; personal guarantors also answerable under Part III, IBC - Deliverables: Consent table with pages, and draft invocation notices Prompt to try (Guarantor check): Read every guarantee and every amendment, restructuring and top-up in this loan file. Build a table of which guarantor consented to which change, flag any variation that could discharge a guarantor, check the corporate guarantee's authorisation under the Companies Act, and draft the invocation notices. Sample documents (3): Kaveri Agro — Guarantees, 2024 Restructuring and 2025 Top-up (Guarantee File); Kaveri Agro — Security Perfection Register (ROC, CERSAI, Depository, Guarantor Approvals); Kaveri Agro Loan File — Sanctions and Security Documents (2019-2022). #### SARFAESI: from demand notice to possession Problem: SARFAESI is fast only when every step is right. The demand notice under section 13(2) must go to the borrower and every guarantor, state the amount and the secured assets, and give sixty days. A representation must be answered within fifteen days under section 13(3A). A slip at any step is the first ground in the borrower's application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The branch sends the file with the notice already issued and asks for possession next week. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the notice, the proof of service, any representation and the bank's reply, and checks each step against SARFAESI and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, with the date each was due and the date it happened. It says whether the bank can take possession under section 13(4) now, drafts the possession notice and the section 14 application if the borrower resists, and sets out the sale timetable. Example output: - NPA: Account classified NPA on 31.03.2026 - Demand notice: s.13(2) notice dated Monday 15 June 2026; sixty days end Friday 14 August 2026 - Representation: Received Wednesday 1 July; reply due by Thursday 16 July under s.13(3A); replied on 14 July - Service gap: No proof of service on the second guarantor; re-serve before acting against her property - Possession: s.13(4) possession on Friday 21 August 2026; borrower's s.17 window of 45 days ends Monday 5 October Prompt to try (SARFAESI check): Read the demand notice, the proof of service, the representation and our reply in this matter. Check each step against SARFAESI and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules with the date due and the date done, tell me whether we can take possession under section 13(4) now, and draft the possession notice. Sample documents (2): Kaveri Agro — SARFAESI File (s.13(2) Notice, Proof of Service, Representation and s.13(3A) Reply); Kaveri Agro — Guarantees, 2024 Restructuring and 2025 Top-up (Guarantee File). #### A section 7 petition against the corporate borrower Problem: The bank wants to start insolvency. The default must be at least ₹1 crore, the petition must be within three years of default unless the debt has been acknowledged, and the record of default and the financial contracts have to be in order. Limitation is where most contested petitions are argued. The acknowledgments are scattered across balance sheets, restructuring letters and one-time settlement proposals, some signed and some not. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the account statement, the loan documents, the balance sheets and the correspondence, fixes the date of default, and lists every document that may acknowledge the debt under section 18 of the Limitation Act, with who signed it and when. It computes the limitation with each acknowledgment shown, checks the record of default from the information utility, and drafts the petition in Form 1 with its annexures and the list of dates. Example output: - Default: ₹36.4 crore; date of default 31.07.2023 from the statement of account - Plain three years: Ends 31.07.2026, already passed - Acknowledgment: FY24 balance sheet signed 15.05.2024 records the loan as payable to the bank (p. 88) - Fresh period: Runs to 15.05.2027 from the signed acknowledgment - Deliverables: Limitation note with the working, and a draft Form 1 petition with annexures Prompt to try (Section 7 petition): From the statement of account, the loan documents, the balance sheets and the correspondence, fix the date of default, list every document that may acknowledge the debt under section 18 of the Limitation Act, compute the limitation for a section 7 IBC petition, and draft the petition. Sample documents (1): Kaveri Agri Logistics — Default and Acknowledgment Bundle for Section 7 IBC. #### An original application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal Problem: Where SARFAESI does not fit, such as unsecured exposure or a shortfall after sale, the bank files an original application under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act for a debt of ₹20 lakh or more. The application has to prove the debt from the documents, account for every credit and the interest, and pray for the right relief against each defendant. The statement of account runs to eight hundred lines and the interest was reset four times. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the loan documents and the statement of account, reconciles the claim, and shows the principal, interest and charges separately with the rate that applied in each period. It flags entries the defendants will dispute, such as charges not provided for in the agreement. It drafts the application with the list of dates, the documents relied on and the prayer against each defendant, and exports the reconciliation to Excel. Example output: - Statement read: 812 entries from 2019 to 2026, in Excel - Claim: Principal ₹3.12 crore, interest ₹1.07 crore, charges ₹6.4 lakh - Interest: Four resets, each tied to the rate letter on file - Likely dispute: ₹2.1 lakh of processing charges debited in 2024 with no clause in the agreement - Deliverables: Draft original application in Word, and the reconciliation in Excel Prompt to try (Recovery application): Read the loan documents and the statement of account. Reconcile the amount due into principal, interest and charges with the rate for each period, flag any debit not supported by the agreement, and draft an original application under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act against the borrower and the guarantors. Sample documents (3): Kaveri Agro — Term Loan I Statement of Account (Aug 2019 to Sep 2026); Kaveri Agro — Term Loan I Agreement (2019) with Rate Reset Letters; Kaveri Agro — Guarantees, 2024 Restructuring and 2025 Top-up (Guarantee File). #### Answering a customer complaint before the Ombudsman Problem: A customer complains to the RBI Ombudsman under the Integrated Ombudsman Scheme 2021 about a disputed debit, a delayed release of title deeds or a charge they say was never disclosed. The Ombudsman decides largely on the bank's reply and the documents it furnishes, and can award compensation of up to ₹20 lakh for consequential loss. The branch's file is a string of emails and a call log, and the reply is due before anyone has read the account opening form. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the complaint, the customer's documents and the branch file, sets each grievance against what the record shows, and checks the bank's conduct against the RBI directions that apply, such as the timeline for returning property documents after closure. It says where the bank is exposed and where it is not, and drafts the reply with the documents to furnish, for the nodal officer to review and submit. Example output: - Complaint: Title deeds returned 74 days after the loan closed - Record: Closure on 12.05.2026 from the statement; deeds dispatched 25.07.2026 from the courier log - Exposure: Delay beyond the RBI's timeline for releasing property documents; daily compensation payable - Not supported: Allegation of an undisclosed foreclosure charge: disclosed in the sanction letter, p. 3 - Deliverable: Draft reply with the documents to furnish, in Word Prompt to try (Ombudsman reply): Read the complaint, the customer's documents and the branch file. Set each grievance against the record with the page, check the bank's conduct against the RBI directions that apply, say where we are exposed, and draft the reply to the Ombudsman with the documents to furnish. Sample documents (2): RBI Ombudsman Complaint — Vikram Deshmukh v. Narmada Commercial Bank (with customer's annexures); Aundh Branch File — Deshmukh Loan Against Property (Sanction, KFS, Closure, Document Release and Courier Log). #### Drafting the sanction letter from the credit note Problem: The credit committee has approved the proposal and the branch wants the sanction letter out today. The letter has to carry every approved term, in the bank's own format, and nothing the approval did not cover, because the borrower will hold the bank to it and the facility agreement must follow it. Credit notes are written by several hands. The summary page and the covenant page can give different figures, pricing can follow a habit the RBI's directions no longer allow for the borrower's category, and a condition such as the collateral owner's consent can be approved without anyone deciding what document it needs. How Justis handles it: Justis drafts the sanction letter in Word on the bank's template from the approved credit note: facilities, pricing, security, covenants, conditions precedent and the acceptance block, with every term traced to the page of the note it came from. It lists, for the credit officer, every point where the note contradicts itself or the template's standard clauses, and every term that needs a decision before the letter issues, rather than choosing quietly. Example output: - Facilities: Term loan ₹14 crore over 96 months with 18 months' moratorium, 26 quarterly instalments; cash credit ₹4 crore at 75% of receivables - Covenant conflict: Summary page: minimum DSCR 1.25; covenant table on page 3: 1.30. Left for the credit officer to confirm - Pricing: Cash credit priced at one-year MCLR + 1.75% for a Udyam-registered small enterprise; floating-rate MSME loans must be linked to an external benchmark - Collateral: Bungalow owned by the MD's mother; she is not among the guarantors. Template clause 3.4 makes her mortgagor and guarantor; to be approved - Penal: Note provides penal interest compounded monthly; drafted as penal charges, not added to the rate or capitalised - Deliverable: Draft sanction letter in Word and a list of points for the credit officer Prompt to try (Draft the sanction letter): Draft the sanction letter for Sahyadri Cold Chain on the bank's standard template from the approved credit appraisal note in this matter. Carry every approved term with the page of the note it comes from, use the template's standard clauses, and list separately every inconsistency in the note and every term that conflicts with current RBI directions or the template, for the credit officer to decide before the letter issues. Sample documents (2): Sahyadri Cold Chain — Credit appraisal note and approval (Regional Credit Committee, 24.09.2026); Narmada Commercial Bank — Standard sanction letter format for MSME facilities (2026). #### Reviewing the borrower's draft settlement agreement Problem: The bank has sanctioned a one-time settlement, and the borrower's counsel has sent the settlement agreement for signature. It reads like the sanction, but the release of guarantors, the withdrawal of the recovery case and the credit reporting have moved from 'on full payment' to 'on signing', and the payment schedule has stretched. Once the bank signs, those changes bind it. A guarantor released on signing cannot be pursued if the borrower stops paying after the first instalment. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the draft against the sanction letter, clause by clause, and marks it up as tracked changes in Word with a comment on each change citing the sanction term it restores or the reason it is refused. It lists every departure from the sanction in one table for the authorised officer, so anything the bank chooses to accept goes back to the sanctioning authority rather than being agreed in drafting. Example output: - Amount: Draft says ₹6.20 crore; sanction is ₹6.40 crore - Schedule: Draft pays over nine months to 30.06.2027 with no interest; sanction requires the balance of ₹4.80 crore by 09.12.2026, with interest after 10.10.2026 - Release: Guarantors released and the DRT case withdrawn on signing; sanction allows both only on full payment - Default: 90-day cure and the settlement continues; sanction revokes it on any default and revives the full claim - Guarantors: Clause 4.2 waives action under Part III of the IBC; deleted - Reporting and forum: Account to be reported 'closed', not 'settled'; arbitrator to be appointed by the borrower alone. Both struck - Deliverable: Tracked-changes agreement with comments, and a departures table for the authorised officer Prompt to try (Review the settlement): We act for the bank. Review the borrower's draft settlement agreement against our one-time settlement sanction letter in this matter. Mark up the agreement as tracked changes with a comment on each change citing the sanction term it restores or the reason for refusing it, and give me a table of every departure from the sanction for the authorised officer. Sample documents (2): Shree Ganesh Polymers — Settlement agreement, borrower's draft (22.09.2026); Shree Ganesh Polymers — One-time settlement sanction letter (10.09.2026). #### Filling the section 13(2) demand notice from the loan file Problem: The account has turned NPA and the credit committee has approved SARFAESI action. The legal department has the bank's standard format for the demand notice and a data sheet from the branch, and the notice has to go out this week. The data sheet is where the notice goes wrong. It carries the guarantor's address from the sanction file, an interest figure with capitalised penal interest inside it, and every security the bank holds, including one the Act does not let the bank enforce. How Justis handles it: Justis fills the bank's Word format from the data sheet and the loan file: noticees with their current addresses, facilities, NPA date, the amount split into principal, interest and charges, and the schedule of secured assets with boundaries and dates of creation. Each entry is checked against the loan file before it goes in. Where the data sheet and the loan file disagree, the notice follows the file and the covering note says what changed and why, including any asset left out of the schedule. Example output: - Noticees: Borrower and two guarantors; Salil Desai's current address from his 12.02.2025 letter, with the old one as last known address - Amount: ₹4,74,48,800 as on 31.08.2026, split by facility into principal, interest and charges - Penal: ₹3,42,000 of penal interest capitalised from April to August 2026 taken out of interest and shown as charges, flagged for reversal - Schedule: Plot B-22 MIDC Mirjole (mortgage 04.02.2022) and hypothecated movables included - Excluded: Gat No. 117, Pawas: a mango orchard on the 7/12 with no N.A. permission; agricultural land is outside the Act under s.31(i) - Deliverable: Completed notice in Word and a covering note of changes from the data sheet Prompt to try (Fill the demand notice): Fill the bank's standard section 13(2) demand notice for Konkan Marine Exports from the branch's NPA data sheet and the loan file extracts in this matter. Check every entry against the loan file: noticees and current addresses, facilities, NPA date, the amount split into principal, interest and charges, and the schedule of secured assets. Leave out any asset the Act does not allow us to enforce, and give me a covering note of every change from the data sheet and why. Sample documents (3): Narmada Commercial Bank — Standard format of demand notice under section 13(2) SARFAESI (blank); Konkan Marine Exports — Branch NPA data sheet for the section 13(2) notice (Ratnagiri branch); Konkan Marine Exports — Security schedule, 7/12 extract and guarantor KYC update (loan file extracts). #### A legal audit across loan files Problem: Every year the bank's legal audit samples MSME loan files and asks the same questions of each: was the sanction accepted by everyone who had to accept it, is each security created and stamped, were the charge and CERSAI filings made in time, is the valuation current, is the insurance in force with the bank's clause, and does the title search cover the period the policy requires. Each file is a different borrower, branch and set of documents, and the defects are small: a blank signature line, a policy that lapsed last month, a search that stops at thirteen years. How Justis handles it: Tabular review asks the audit questions of every file in the matter and returns one row per borrower, each cell citing the page of the file. Missing filings, lapsed insurance and stale valuations show up as a column, not as a finding buried in one of forty notes. The grid exports to Excel for the audit report, and Justis lists the exceptions with what each branch has to do to close them. Example output: - Files read: 4 MSME loan files from four branches, one row each - Acceptance: Vasundhara Foods: second guarantor's line on the sanction acceptance is blank - Filings: Shivneri: ROC charge filed 41 days after creation, within the period allowed on additional fees under s.77; Bhosale Agro: no CERSAI registration for the shop mortgage - Valuation: Abhang Textiles: only valuation dated 12.04.2022, beyond the bank's three-year rule - Insurance: Shivneri: policy expired 14.08.2026, no renewal, no bank clause - Title and stamp: Bhosale Agro: title search covers 13 years only; Vasundhara: mortgage deed stamped on ₹2 crore of ₹4 crore secured Prompt to try (Loan file audit): Run a legal audit of the loan files in this matter. For each borrower, extract the sanction and who signed the acceptance, the security created and its date, the ROC charge and CERSAI filings with the days from creation, the valuation date and value, the insurance expiry and bank clause, and the period covered by the title search, citing the page for each. Then list the exceptions and what each branch must do to close them. Opens in: Tabular Review, one column per question (Borrower and facility, Constitution, Total sanctioned limit, Acceptance signed by all, Security created, Mortgage stamped on, ROC and CERSAI, Latest valuation, Insurance in force, Title search period (years)). Sample documents (4): Loan file — Abhang Textiles Pvt Ltd, Ichalkaranji (term loan ₹5 crore); Loan file — Shivneri Auto Components Pvt Ltd, Chakan (cash credit ₹3 crore and term loan ₹2 crore); Loan file — Bhosale Agro Traders (proprietor Dattatray Bhosale), Baramati (cash credit ₹1.5 crore); Loan file — Vasundhara Foods Pvt Ltd, Satara (term loan ₹4 crore). #### Answering a representation under section 13(3A) Problem: Two weeks after the demand notice, the borrower files a representation: the account was never an NPA, the factory land is agricultural, the dues include compounded penal interest, the bank should have referred the account under the MSME revival framework, and the valuation is too low. Section 13(3A) gives the bank fifteen days to consider it and, if it is not accepted, communicate the reasons. A reply that brushes every point aside is the borrower's first ground before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Each objection needs an answer from the record, and the ones that are right need to be conceded and corrected. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the representation and the loan file, sets each objection against the record with the page, and says which are answered by the documents, which are well founded and what correction they call for, and which need the authorised officer's decision. It drafts the reply in Word with reasons for each point, computes the date by which it must go, and lists the corrections to make to the account before any step under section 13(4). Example output: - Time: Representation received 24.08.2026: reply due by Tuesday 8 September 2026 - NPA: ₹18.40 lakh paid on 28.03.2026 cleared the November 2025 instalment; the January 2026 instalment stayed overdue, so the account was NPA on 02.05.2026. Not accepted - Agricultural land: Collector's order of 14.09.2017 converts Gat No. 211 to industrial use, recorded in the 7/12; s.31(i) does not apply. Not accepted - Penal interest: ₹1,36,000 capitalised from March to July 2026: accepted, to be reversed and the demand recomputed - MSME framework: Udyam certificate on file since 2024 and SMA-2 from 01.03.2026; no referral recorded. For the authorised officer to decide with reasons, not to be dismissed - Valuation: Realisable value ₹6.20 crore against fair value ₹7.40 crore; valuation matters at the sale stage, not to the notice - Deliverable: Reasoned reply in Word and a list of corrections before s.13(4) Prompt to try (Reply to the representation): Read the borrower's representation under section 13(3A) and the loan file extracts in this matter. Set each objection against the record with the page, say which are answered by the documents, which are well founded and what must be corrected, and which need the authorised officer's decision. Compute the date by which the reply must go, and draft a reasoned reply. Sample documents (2): Indrayani Food Products — Borrower's representation against the section 13(2) notice (24.08.2026); Indrayani Food Products — Loan file extracts for the section 13(3A) reply (statement, NA order, charges, valuation). Questions: - Q: Can it compute limitation on acknowledgments of debt? A: Yes. It lists every document that may acknowledge the debt, with who signed it and when, and computes the period with each one shown, so you can check the working and decide which acknowledgments you rely on. - Q: Does it check stamp duty on security documents? A: It reads the stamp paper or e-stamp certificate on each document and compares it with the state stamp Act for the kind of instrument, and marks anything that looks short. Where the rate depends on facts it cannot see, it says so. - Q: Can it reconcile a statement of account? A: Yes. It reads the statement in Excel or PDF, splits the claim into principal, interest and charges with the rate for each period, and flags debits the agreement does not support. The reconciliation exports to Excel. - Q: Will it file a petition or check a registry for us? A: No. It does not file anything or connect to the Registrar, CERSAI, a depository or a tribunal. It reads what you upload and drafts; filing and searches stay with you. - Q: Can it read old scanned security documents? A: Yes. Scanned deeds and letters are read with OCR, including Hindi, and it tells you when it is reading a scan so you know transcription errors are possible. Where a page is illegible it says so instead of guessing. - Q: What should a banking lawyer try first? A: A perfection check on a loan file you already know. Upload it, ask what security each document creates and how it was perfected, and compare the grid with your own note. ### How insurance lawyers use Justis AI URL: https://askjustis.com/use-cases/insurance Insurance work rarely turns on a big question of law. It turns on the wording of one clause, one answer in a proposal form signed years ago, and a date that decides whether the insurer can still question the policy at all. The facts are spread across a policy schedule, three endorsements, a surveyor's report, hospital records and a repudiation letter, and the answer is in how they read together. Justis reads the whole file with you, whichever side you act for. You upload the claim once, and it reads every page, scans included, then sets each ground the insurer relies on against the wording, the dates, the Insurance Act 1938 and IRDAI's rules. Every fact carries the document and page it came from, and anything it could not confirm is marked, not guessed. Try this first: Take a repudiated claim you have already advised on. Upload the policy, the proposal form and the repudiation letter to a project and ask for each ground tested against the wording and the dates, with a source for every point. Compare it with your own opinion. That tells you in fifteen minutes how far to trust it on a file you have not read. #### Death claims repudiated for non-disclosure Problem: A death claim is repudiated for suppression of a medical history in the proposal form. Whether that holds depends first on dates: under section 45 of the Insurance Act, a life policy cannot be called in question on any ground after three years from the date of the policy, the date risk commenced, the date of revival or the date of a rider, whichever is later. Within those three years the insurer can still repudiate, but it has to show the fact was material to the expectancy of life, that it was suppressed or misstated, and it has to communicate the grounds in writing. The answer usually sits in the medical records: when the condition was first diagnosed, and whether the proposer could have known of it when the form was signed. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the policy, the proposal form, the medical records, the investigation report and the repudiation letter together. It works out the relevant three-year date from the policy's own dates, then tests each ground: what the proposal asked, what was answered, what the records show and when. It separates fraud from innocent misstatement, notes where premiums fall to be refunded, and drafts the reply to the repudiation or the insurer's defence, each point cited to the page and the provision. Example output: - Policy: Term life, ₹75 lakh, issued 10.06.2023; death on 02.04.2026 - Section 45 date: Three years from issue ends 10.06.2026: death and repudiation both fall inside, so the policy can still be questioned - Ground relied on: Non-disclosure of diabetes (repudiation letter of 15.07.2026, p. 2) - What the records show: First diagnosis recorded on 22.01.2024, seven months after the proposal was signed (Hospital records, p. 14) - Assessment: No fact to suppress on the proposal date; the ground does not hold on the insurer's own records - Deliverable: Reply to the repudiation in Word, cited to 9 pages and section 45 Prompt to try (Test a repudiation): Read the policy, the proposal form, the medical records and the repudiation letter. Work out whether section 45 of the Insurance Act bars the repudiation, test each ground the insurer relies on against what the proposal asked and when each condition was first recorded, and draft the reply. Sample documents (3): Death Claim Repudiation Letter (Sahyadri Life, 15.07.2026); Term Life Policy Schedule and Proposal Form (Rohan Deshpande); Medical Records of the Life Assured (Rohan Deshpande, 2023-2026). #### Health claims: pre-existing disease and waiting periods Problem: Health claims are rejected on a short list of grounds: a pre-existing disease, a waiting period not yet served, an exclusion, or a document not produced. Each depends on dates across several policy years, and often across a portability from another insurer, so the continuity of cover has to be rebuilt before the ground can be tested. IRDAI's rules set limits the rejection letter rarely mentions: the maximum waiting period for pre-existing diseases, the moratorium after which a health policy cannot be contested except for proven fraud and the policy's permanent exclusions, and the credit a ported policyholder carries with them. How Justis handles it: Justis reads every schedule and renewal notice, the portability papers, the discharge summary and the rejection, and builds the continuity of cover year by year. It then sets the ground against the policy wording and the IRDAI health insurance rules current when it answers, citing the version it relied on. It drafts the grievance to the insurer and, if that fails, the complaint to the Insurance Ombudsman or the consumer commission, with the timeline and the documents annexed in order. Example output: - Cover: Family floater since 01.04.2019, ported on 01.04.2023 with continuity; renewed each year without a break - Claim: Knee replacement, ₹4.6 lakh, rejected for pre-existing osteoarthritis - Continuity: Over seven years of continuous cover on the admission date, counting the ported years - Moratorium: Continuous cover beyond the five-year moratorium: contestable only for proven fraud or a permanent exclusion, neither alleged - Next forum: Grievance to the insurer first; Ombudsman complaint within one year of its final reply - Deliverable: Grievance letter and draft Ombudsman complaint with an annexure index Prompt to try (Health claim rejection): Read the policy schedules, renewal notices, portability papers and the rejection letter. Build the continuity of cover year by year, test the rejection ground against the wording and IRDAI's current health insurance rules on waiting periods and the moratorium, and draft the grievance to the insurer. Sample documents (2): Discharge Summary and Claim Rejection Letter (Venkatesh Iyer, knee replacement); Health Policy Schedules, Renewals and Portability Papers (Iyer family floater, 2019-2026). #### Motor accident claims before the tribunal Problem: A claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is decided on two things: whether the insurer can escape liability and how much compensation is due. The insurer's defences under section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 are narrow, such as no valid driving licence or use outside the permit, and proving one often still leaves the insurer paying the third party and recovering from the owner. The compensation is arithmetic on the record: income, age, future prospects, dependants and the multiplier. Get the income proof or the age wrong and the award moves by lakhs, in either direction. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the FIR, the charge sheet, the driving licence, the permit, the policy and the claimant's income papers, including scans in Hindi, and sets each defence against the documents that prove or defeat it. It checks the limitation for the claim petition under section 166(3). It computes compensation on the multiplier method with every step shown, so both sides can argue the inputs rather than the total, and drafts the written statement for the insurer or the claim petition for the claimant. Example output: - Accident: 14.05.2026, Nashik; claim petition to be filed within six months, by 14.11.2026 - Licence defence: Driver's licence expired 03.03.2026 and not renewed on the accident date (Licence extract, p. 3) - Likely outcome: Insurer pays the third party and recovers from the owner - Income: Salaried, age 34, ₹40,000 a month on the salary slips; permanent job - Computation: ₹4.8 lakh a year, plus 50% future prospects, less one quarter for personal expenses, times multiplier 16: ₹86.4 lakh before conventional heads - Deliverable: Written statement for the insurer, with the computation as an annexure Prompt to try (Motor claim defence): Read the claim petition, the FIR, the driving licence, the permit and the policy. Set out the insurer's defences under section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act with the document behind each, compute compensation on the multiplier method with every step shown, and draft the written statement. Sample documents (1): Motor Accident Claim Petition with FIR, Licence, Permit and Policy (Nashik, 14.05.2026). #### Fire and property losses: the surveyor's report Problem: In a fire or burglary loss, liability is often admitted and the fight is over quantum. The surveyor's report cuts the claim with depreciation, salvage, an average clause for under-insurance and items said to fall outside the policy, and each deduction sits on a different page of a long report. The policy's arbitration clause may cover only disputes on quantum where liability is admitted, so whether the dispute goes to arbitration or to a commission depends on how the insurer framed its response. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the policy, the schedule and endorsements, the surveyor's report and the claim bill, and puts every deduction in a table: the amount, the reason given, the clause relied on and whether the wording supports it. It checks the average clause arithmetic against the declared sum insured, identifies whether the insurer has admitted liability, and says which forum the dispute belongs in, then drafts the objection to the survey report or the notice invoking arbitration. Example output: - Loss: Warehouse fire; claim for stock of ₹1.5 crore under a fire and special perils policy - Survey assessment: ₹88 lakh after 7 deductions, each tied to a page of the report - Average clause: Sum insured ₹4 crore against value at risk of ₹5 crore: loss scaled by four fifths, ₹1.2 crore before other deductions - Deductions challenged: 3 of 7 not supported by the wording, including salvage valued twice (Survey report, pp. 18 and 26) - Forum: Liability admitted in the insurer's letter of 24.09.2026, so the quantum-only arbitration clause applies - Deliverable: Objections to the survey report and a draft notice invoking arbitration Prompt to try (Survey report review): Read the policy, the endorsements, the surveyor's report and our claim bill. Put every deduction in a table with the amount, the reason given, the clause relied on and whether the wording supports it, check the average clause arithmetic, and tell me whether the arbitration clause applies. Sample documents (2): Final Survey Report on the Bhiwandi Warehouse Fire, with the Insurer's Letter of 24.09.2026; Fire and Special Perils Policy Schedule, Wording Extract and Endorsements (Nandi Logistics warehouse). #### Coverage opinions on liability and D&O policies Problem: A director receives a show cause notice from SEBI, or a company is served with a professional negligence claim, and the first question is whether the policy responds. Claims-made wordings turn on definitions: what counts as a claim, when it was first made, whether notice was given in time, and whether the facts were known before the retroactive date. The exclusions interact with each other and with the endorsements, and a coverage opinion that misses one endorsement is wrong from the start. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the policy wording, the schedule and every endorsement together, then the notice or claim, and walks through cover in order: insuring clause, definitions, period and notice, retroactive date, exclusions, then the limits and retention. It quotes each operative clause with the page, marks where the wording is ambiguous and the reading that favours each side, and drafts the coverage opinion or the notification to insurers. Example output: - Event: SEBI show cause notice to two independent directors, received 02.09.2026 - Is it a claim: Definition includes a formal regulatory proceeding against an insured person (Wording, cl. 2.3, p. 6) - Notice: Must be given as soon as practicable within the policy period; period ends 31.03.2027 - Exclusions: Conduct exclusion applies only on a final adjudication; prior notice exclusion not triggered on the file - Endorsement: Endorsement 4 sub-limits regulatory defence costs to ₹2 crore - Deliverable: Coverage opinion and a draft notification to insurers Prompt to try (Coverage opinion): Read the D&O policy wording, the schedule, every endorsement and the SEBI show cause notice. Walk through cover in order: insuring clause, definition of claim, notice, retroactive date, exclusions and limits, quoting each clause with its page, and draft a coverage opinion. Sample documents (2): Directors and Officers Liability Policy: Schedule, Wording Extract and Endorsements (Meghna Agritech); SEBI Show Cause Notice to Two Independent Directors (Meghna Agritech, received 02.09.2026). #### Consumer commission complaints and defences Problem: Most insurance disputes end up before a consumer commission, and the first objections are procedural. Pecuniary jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 turns on the consideration paid, which for a policy is the premium, not the amount claimed, and complaints filed on the claim value go to the wrong forum. The complaint has to be filed within two years of the cause of action, and the insurer's reply has to meet the allegation of deficiency in service head on, with the policy clause and the claim papers, not a general denial. How Justis handles it: Justis identifies the forum from the premium paid, computes the limitation date from the rejection, and builds the complaint or the reply paragraph by paragraph, each point tied to a page of the claim file and the clause of the policy. It lists the preliminary objections the record supports, such as limitation, a pending Ombudsman complaint on the same facts or a quantum dispute covered by arbitration, and drafts the evidence affidavit with the documents in order. Example output: - Claim: Health claim of ₹18 lakh rejected on 20.08.2025 - Forum: Premium paid ₹62,000: District Commission, although the claim is ₹18 lakh - Limitation: Two years under section 69: complaint by 20.08.2027 - Deficiency alleged: Rejection without reasons, and claim decided 94 days after the last document - Preliminary objections: None supported for the insurer on the file; Ombudsman complaint withdrawn before filing - Deliverable: Consumer complaint, evidence affidavit and index of documents in Word Prompt to try (Consumer complaint): Read the policy, the claim papers and the rejection letter. Tell me which consumer commission has jurisdiction on the premium paid, compute the limitation date under section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, and draft the complaint with each allegation tied to a page of the file. Sample documents (1): Health Claim File for a Consumer Complaint (Farida Khan v. Neelgiri Health). #### Reviewing a book of claims and litigation Problem: An insurer's legal team carries hundreds of pending matters across tribunals, commissions and courts, and the panel advocates report in different formats. Knowing which files share a losing ground, which are close to a hearing and where the exposure sits means opening every file. The same is true when a reinsurer, a new panel counsel or an internal audit asks for a view of the book by the end of the week. How Justis handles it: Upload the claim files and tabular review asks the same questions of every one at once: forum, stage, amount claimed, ground of repudiation, next date and the defence taken. Every cell cites the page it came from. Justis then groups the book by ground and outcome, marks the files where the defence looks weak on the insurer's own papers, and exports the grid to Excel or a short summary deck for the review meeting. Example output: - Files read: 312 matters, 41,000 pages, 58 of them scanned - Grid: 12 questions per file, each answer cited to the document and page - Pattern: 47 life claims repudiated for non-disclosure after the three-year date in section 45 - Exposure: ₹38.6 crore claimed in matters listed in the next 60 days - Flag: 19 files where the investigation report does not support the ground relied on - Deliverable: Excel grid, a note on settlement candidates and a six-slide summary Prompt to try (Portfolio review): Review every claim file in this matter. For each, give the forum, the stage, the amount claimed, the ground of repudiation, the next date and the defence taken, with the page for each answer. Then group the files by ground and flag those where our own papers do not support the ground. Sample documents (4): Pending Claims Litigation Register (panel counsel, as on 25.09.2026); Death Claim Repudiation Letter (Sahyadri Life, 15.07.2026); Health Claim File for a Consumer Complaint (Farida Khan v. Neelgiri Health); Motor Accident Claim Petition with FIR, Licence, Permit and Policy (Nashik, 14.05.2026). #### A claim file read into a settlement or repudiation note Problem: A theft or loss claim reaches the claims manager as a file: the policy and endorsements, the claim form, the police papers, the surveyor's documents and an investigator's report that ends in a recommendation. The recommendation is often where the file is weakest, and a repudiation on a ground the file does not support comes back as a consumer complaint with interest and costs. Whoever signs the decision needs the grounds tested against the documents and the case law, the amount worked out, and a list of what is still missing before payment. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the whole file, scans included, and takes each ground the investigator relies on in turn: what the policy condition says, what the documents show, and what the Supreme Court has said about that ground. Where two documents disagree it puts them side by side with the page for each. It computes the amount payable under the policy, splits it between the financier and the insured, lists the documents to call for, and drafts the settlement or repudiation note for the claims manager to decide on. Example output: - Delay ground: Insurer told 41 days after the theft, but FIR registered at 08:30 the same morning; Gurshinder Singh (SC, 2020) says late intimation alone does not defeat a theft claim where the police were told at once - Key ground: Investigator says one key produced (report p. 3); the surveyor's receipt of 28.08.2026 records both keys (claim file p. 3) - Investigator's own findings: Theft genuine on the police record and CCTV; no financial distress - Amount: IDV ₹9,40,000 less ₹1,000 deductible: ₹9,39,000, of which ₹4,12,600 to the bank as on 04.09.2026 and ₹5,26,400 to the insured - Before payment: Magistrate's order accepting the untraced report (listed 21.10.2026), subrogation letter, bank NOC - Deliverable: Settlement note recommending payment, in Word, each point cited to the page Prompt to try (Claim decision note): Read the whole theft claim file: the policy and endorsements, the claim form, the police papers, the surveyor's documents and the investigation report. Test each ground the investigator gives for repudiation against the documents and the Supreme Court's decisions on late intimation in theft claims, compute the amount payable and its split between the financier and the insured, list what must be on file before payment, and draft a settlement or repudiation note. Sample documents (3): Investigation report on the theft claim (Sentinel Claims Investigation, 19.09.2026); Motor theft claim — policy schedule, claim form and surveyor's key acknowledgement (Aniket Joshi, Pune); FIR No. 0412/2026, Hinjewadi Police Station, and the police final report (vehicle not traced). #### An appeal to the State Commission: both sides argued Problem: A District Commission allows a repudiated claim with interest, compensation and costs. The insurer has 45 days from the order to appeal to the State Commission under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, and the appeal is not entertained without a deposit of half the amount ordered. Management asks two questions: can the order be set aside, and is it worth the deposit. The answer depends on the order's errors and on the weak points in the insurer's own file, which the other side will find. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the order and the record together and sets out the argument for each side, ground by ground, with the authorities from the Supreme Court corpus and the page of the record behind each point. It marks the order's errors of fact and law and the documents that cut against the insurer. It computes the limitation date and the deposit, gives a candid view of which grounds are strong, weak or uncertain, and drafts the memorandum of appeal on the grounds you choose to run. Example output: - Order: District Commission, Ahmedabad, 08.09.2026: ₹7,85,000 with 9% interest, ₹50,000 compensation, ₹10,000 costs - Error of fact: Para 9 says the proposal form was not produced; para 5 records it filed as Annexure R-2 - Error of law: Para 11 applies the five-year moratorium to a policy issued 20.11.2021, about 26 months before the claim - Weak point for the insurer: Its own pre-policy medical report shows HbA1c 8.9% and the underwriter accepted with a loading; Manmohan Nanda (SC, 2021) against Satwant Kaur Sandhu (SC, 2009) - Time and deposit: Appeal by 23.10.2026; 50% deposit ₹4,22,500 on the sums ordered, interest to be confirmed - Deliverables: Argument note with both sides' grounds and authorities, and a draft memorandum of appeal in Word Prompt to try (Appeal strategy): Read the District Commission's order and the insurer's record in this matter. Set out the grounds of appeal and the complainant's likely answer to each, with the Supreme Court authorities on each side and the page of the record behind every point, mark the order's errors of fact and law and the documents that weaken our case, rate each ground strong, weak or uncertain, compute the limitation date and the deposit under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, and draft a memorandum of appeal. Sample documents (2): Final order of the District Consumer Commission, Ahmedabad (Harish Vora v. Tejas Health Insurance, 08.09.2026); Insurer's record in Harish Vora's claim — proposal form, pre-policy medical report, clinic records and repudiation. #### Filling an Insurance Ombudsman complaint Problem: For a claim within the Ombudsman's limit, a complaint under the Insurance Ombudsman Rules 2017 is often quicker and cheaper than a consumer case. The form asks for exact particulars: the policy number, the date of the grievance and of the insurer's reply, whether any other proceeding is pending, the porting history of a health policy, and the relief sought. The client's own account usually has the figure wrong and sometimes the policy number too, and the form is filed with whatever the intake sheet says. How Justis handles it: Upload the blank Annexure VI-A in Word, the intake sheet and the claim papers. Justis fills every item from the documents, notes the source of each answer, and marks where the intake and the papers disagree. It recomputes the relief from the policy wording and the bill, checks the one-year limit and the monetary ceiling, and drafts the brief statement of the case for item 4. Signing and filing stay with the client. Example output: - Form filled: Annexure VI-A, items 1 to 12 and the porting details, as a completed Word document - Policy number: Intake says PGI/HF/2025/PNQ/0047179; the schedule and the settlement letter say …0047719 - The deduction: Insurer applied the 50% room-rent proportion to the whole bill; clause 4.6 excludes pharmacy, implants and diagnostics - Relief: ₹1,91,400 payable on the wording (₹5,18,800 less ₹3,27,400 paid), not the client's ₹3,57,600, which includes non-payables and the room difference - Time and limit: Insurer's reply 08.07.2026: complaint by 08.07.2027; well within the ₹50 lakh limit - Porting: Ported 01.02.2022 from Vasundhara Health; cover since 01.02.2020 Prompt to try (Ombudsman complaint): Fill the blank Insurance Ombudsman complaint form (Annexure VI-A) from the intake sheet and the claim papers, as a completed Word document. Take each particular from the documents and note its source, flag every point where the intake and the papers disagree, recompute the amount due under the policy's proportionate deduction clause with the working shown, confirm the one-year time limit, and write the brief details of the case for item 4. Sample documents (3): Insurance Ombudsman complaint form, Annexure VI-A (blank, Word); Client intake sheet — Sunita Kulkarni, partial settlement of a hip surgery claim; Claim papers — Sunita Kulkarni v. Prabhat General (policy schedule, bill break-up, settlement letter, grievance and reply). #### Redlining a renewal wording for the policyholder Problem: Renewal terms arrive a few weeks before expiry with a premium change and what the broker calls wording clean-up. In a claims-made cyber or liability policy the clean-up is where cover goes: a retroactive date reset to inception, a sub-limit on the risk that matters most, a notice condition made a condition precedent, an exclusion that lets the insurer decide what it applies to. The risk committee needs to know what changed against the expiring policy and what to ask for before it binds. How Justis handles it: Upload the proposed wording and your instructions with the expiring terms. Justis compares them clause by clause, marks every change from the expiring cover as a tracked change in the renewal wording with a comment the broker can forward, and drafts your position where it differs. It sets out what each change means for a real claim, and separates what you can accept from what you cannot. Example output: - Retroactive date: Reset from 01.04.2021 to 01.11.2026 and the continuity clause 8.5 deleted: prior acts lose cover - Ransomware: Sub-limited to ₹5 crore of the ₹20 crore limit; expiring cover was the full limit - Notice: Clause 8.1: within 48 hours of discovery by any employee, as a condition precedent; expiring was 30 days and prejudice-based - War exclusion: Clause 6.14 adds state-backed cyber operations, with attribution decided by the insurer - Fines and new exclusions: Fines 'where insurable by law' dropped; new unencrypted device exclusion 6.19 - Deliverable: Tracked-change wording in Word with a comment on each change, and a one-page note for the risk committee Prompt to try (Renewal wording redline): Compare the insurer's proposed renewal schedule and wording with the expiring terms and our positions in the instructions note. For every change from the expiring cover, quote the clause, explain its effect on a claim, say whether our positions allow it, and redline the wording as tracked changes with a comment for the broker on each. Then write a one-page note for the risk committee. Sample documents (2): Cyber insurance renewal — insurer's proposed schedule and wording for 2026-27 (Trivikram Software Services); Cyber cover — expiring terms and client's renewal instructions (Trivikram Software Services). #### A batch of motor own-damage claims Problem: A divisional office clears motor own-damage claims in batches, each with a policy schedule, a claim intimation, a licence extract and a survey report. Most are routine, and the few that are not look like the routine ones: an accident the night before a break-in policy began, a surveyor recommending repudiation on a licence ground the Supreme Court has rejected, depreciation deducted on a zero-depreciation policy. Reading each file in full is the only way to catch them, and the batch is due by Friday. How Justis handles it: Tabular review asks the same questions of every file: policy period against the accident date, the licence against the vehicle's class, the delay in intimation and its explanation, the survey assessment and its deductions, and the red flags. Every cell cites the page. Justis then sorts the batch into files to pay as assessed, to pay at a corrected figure and to decide on liability, and exports the grid to Excel. Example output: - Files read: 5 claim files from the Nashik office - Not covered: MC-1101: accident at 23:40 on 17.06.2026; the break-in policy started at 00:00 on 18.06.2026 - Licence ground fails: MC-1102: LMV licence on a 3,490 kg goods carrier; covered under the Constitution Bench ruling of 6 November 2024 affirming Mukund Dewangan - Delay explained: MC-1103: 23 days, insured in hospital, vehicle kept unrepaired; survey not prejudiced - Wrong assessment: MC-1104: ₹38,700 depreciation deducted despite the zero-depreciation add-on; payable ₹1,40,100, not ₹1,01,400 - Routine: MC-1105: pay as assessed, ₹49,800 Prompt to try (Motor claim batch): Run a tabular review of every motor own-damage claim file in this matter. For each, check the accident date against the policy period, the driver's licence against the vehicle's class and weight, the delay in intimation and its explanation, the survey assessment and every deduction against the add-ons, and any red flag. Then sort the files into pay as assessed, pay at a corrected figure, and decide liability. Opens in: Tabular Review, one column per question (Accident date, Within policy period, Driver's licence, Intimation delay (days), Survey deductions, Net assessed, Correct payable amount, Red flags, Recommendation). Sample documents (5): Motor own-damage claim file MC-1101 (Hyundai Creta, Nashik) — collision on 17.06.2026; Motor own-damage claim file MC-1102 (Tata Intra goods carrier, Malegaon) — LMV licence on a light goods vehicle; Motor own-damage claim file MC-1103 (Maruti Swift, Sinnar) — intimation 23 days late, explained by hospitalisation; Motor own-damage claim file MC-1104 (Honda City, Nashik Road) — depreciation deducted despite zero-depreciation cover; Motor own-damage claim file MC-1105 (Mahindra XUV300, Igatpuri) — straightforward side impact. Questions: - Q: Can it tell whether section 45 bars a repudiation? A: It reads the policy's dates, including any revival or rider, works out when the three-year period ends and sets the date of the repudiation against it, with the working shown. Within the three years it tests whether the fact was material, whether it was suppressed and whether the grounds were given in writing. - Q: Can it read hospital records and surveyor's reports? A: Yes. Discharge summaries, prescriptions, investigation reports and survey reports are read whether they are typed or scanned, including Hindi, and the associate tells you when it is reading a scan so you know transcription errors are possible. Where handwriting is illegible it says so instead of guessing. - Q: Does it know the IRDAI rules in force today? A: It checks IRDAI's regulations and master circulars through live web search when it answers, cites the version it relied on, and flags where the rule at the date of the policy or the claim may differ from today's. - Q: Can it help decide between the Ombudsman and a consumer commission? A: It sets out both routes for your facts: whether the complaint fits the Ombudsman's scope, the time limits for each, which commission has jurisdiction on the premium paid, and what each forum can award. The choice stays with you and the client. - Q: Can we keep our standard positions on wordings? A: Yes. Save them as a playbook, such as the exclusions you accept, the definitions you insist on and the fallback for each, and Justis applies it to every wording you review, with each departure marked as a tracked change in Word. - Q: What should an insurance lawyer try first? A: A repudiated claim you already know. Upload the policy, the proposal form and the repudiation letter, ask for each ground tested against the wording and the dates, and check it against your own opinion. It is the quickest way to see where it helps and where you still want to look yourself. ### How law firms use Justis AI URL: https://askjustis.com/use-cases/law-firms A firm's quality is decided less by its best partner than by its most junior associate on a busy night. The precedent that should have been used is in someone's folder, the clause the firm fought for last year is in a closed matter, the template still cites a repealed Act, and the client report is assembled by hand from six trackers the evening before it is due. Justis gives the whole firm one place to do that work. Each matter is its own project with its documents, meetings, research and drafts, and the firm's own material, its precedents, its positions and its methods, can be saved once and used on every matter. Every answer cites the document and page it came from, drafts arrive as tracked changes in Word, and a partner still signs off on everything that leaves the firm. Try this first: Take one kind of agreement the firm drafts often, such as a shareholders' agreement. Upload the last twenty the firm has signed to a project and ask for the key clauses compared across all of them, with the page for each. Look at where the firm's position has drifted. That tells you in an afternoon what your precedent bank should say. #### Matter intake and conflict checks from the documents Problem: A new matter arrives as a bundle: a notice, a draft agreement, a set of board resolutions. The conflict check runs on the one name in the email, while the names that matter are inside the papers: the group companies, the directors, the guarantors and the counterparty's parent. The Bar Council of India Rules bar an advocate from acting against a client in a matter where they have advised the other side, and a group-company hit found after the engagement letter is signed is the hardest kind to unwind. How Justis handles it: Upload the intake papers and the firm's client and matter list as a spreadsheet. Justis pulls every party out of the documents, including directors, signatories, guarantors and group companies, with the page each appears on, and compares them against the list, allowing for variations in how a name is written. It returns the possible hits for the partner to clear, a short intake note on the matter, and the facts the engagement letter needs, such as the parties, the scope and any deadline already running. Example output: - Intake papers: Legal notice, draft supply agreement, 2 board resolutions: 38 pages - Parties found: 14, including 3 directors and a guarantor named only in the resolution (p. 31) - Possible hit: Counterparty's parent, Harbour Crest Holdings, is an existing client (matter list, row 812) - Name variant: Director "R. K. Anand" matches "Rakesh Kumar Anand", adverse party in a closed 2024 matter - Clock already running: Notice demands a reply within 15 days of receipt - Deliverable: Conflict report for the partner and a draft intake note Prompt to try (Intake and conflicts): Read the intake papers and list every party named in them, including directors, signatories, guarantors and group companies, with the page each appears on. Compare them against the firm's client and matter list in this matter, allowing for spelling variations, and list the possible conflicts for a partner to clear. Sample documents (2): New matter intake papers: Sarvodaya Polymers v. Tidewell Resins; Client and matter list (conflicts register export). #### Building a precedent bank from past matters Problem: Every firm says it has precedents. In practice the best version of a clause is in a signed agreement in a closed matter, the template on the shared drive is three years older, and each partner keeps a private set. Associates start from whatever they found last. Knowledge management teams know the answer is a curated bank with notes on when to use each clause, but building one means reading hundreds of signed documents, and nobody has the time. How Justis handles it: Upload the firm's signed agreements of one type and tabular review asks the same questions of every one at once: the liability cap, the indemnity, the termination rights, the governing law and seat, with the page behind every cell. Justis groups the variants, shows which the firm has used most and which appeared only when the firm had the stronger hand, and drafts a clause library with a short drafting note on each: when to use it, the fallback, and what the other side usually asks for. Example output: - Agreements read: 64 signed shareholders' agreements, 2019 to 2026 - Grid: 22 clauses per agreement, each answer cited to the document and page - Variants found: Drag-along: 5 versions; threshold ranges from 51% to 75% - Drift: Tag-along excluded for transfers to affiliates in 19 agreements, missing from the firm's template - Clause library: 22 clauses, each with a standard form, a fallback and a drafting note - Deliverable: Excel grid and a precedent bank note in Word Prompt to try (Build a precedent bank): Review every shareholders' agreement in this matter. For each, extract the drag-along, tag-along, pre-emption, reserved matters, exit and deadlock clauses with the page. Then group the variants of each clause, say which the firm uses most, and draft a clause library with a drafting note on each. Sample documents (3): Signed shareholders' agreement: Ardent Foods (2021); Signed shareholders' agreement: Lumen Grid Energy (2024); Firm style guide, playbooks and methods. #### Consistent drafting across the firm Problem: Two associates on the same team produce two different agreements for the same client: different defined terms, different boilerplate, a limitation of liability the firm stopped accepting last year. The partner corrects the same points on every draft. The firm's positions exist, but they live in partners' heads and old emails, so they are applied only when the right partner reviews the draft. How Justis handles it: Save the firm's negotiating positions as a playbook: the standard position on each clause, the fallback and the point at which a partner must approve. Justis applies it to every draft or counterparty paper, and each departure comes back as a tracked change in Word with the reason beside it. Train the digital twin on the firm's precedents and each partner's drafting, and first drafts arrive in that voice. Justis also checks the mechanics a partner should not have to: defined terms used but never defined, cross-references that point nowhere and schedules that do not match the body. Example output: - Draft: Master services agreement, 41 pages, counterparty's paper - Playbook applied: Firm's technology contracts playbook: 26 positions - Departures: 9, for example, uncapped indemnity for IP infringement (cl. 14.2) against a firm position of 2x annual fees - Partner approval: 2 points exceed the fallback and are marked for a partner - Mechanics: 3 undefined terms, 2 broken cross-references, Schedule 3 fees differ from cl. 6.1 - Deliverable: Redline in Word, with a one-page issues list for the client Prompt to try (Apply the firm's playbook): Review this master services agreement against the firm's technology contracts playbook. Mark every departure from our standard position as a tracked change with the reason, flag the points that go beyond our fallback for partner approval, and check the defined terms, cross-references and schedules. Sample documents (2): Master services agreement: counterparty's draft (Stratacore / Meridian Healthcare); Firm style guide, playbooks and methods. #### Updating templates when the law changes Problem: The law has changed under the firm's templates several times in two years. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and its companion codes replaced the IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act from 1 July 2024, the four Labour Codes came into force on 21 November 2025, and the Income-tax Act 2025 replaced the 1961 Act from 1 April 2026. Every employment agreement, indemnity, tax clause and notice template that cites the old law is now wrong, and finding them means opening every template in the bank. How Justis handles it: Upload the firm's templates and ask Justis to find every reference to a repealed or replaced law, with the page and the clause. It proposes the replacement reference where the mapping is clear and marks the ones that need a lawyer's judgment because the new law changed the substance, not just the number. The updates come back as tracked changes in Word, one template at a time, with a change log the knowledge management team can circulate to the firm. Example output: - Templates read: 118 templates across 6 practice groups - Stale references: 213, in 71 templates - Straight update: Employment agreement cl. 9: Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 now under the Code on Social Security 2020 - Needs judgment: Tax indemnity cites sections of the Income-tax Act 1961: mapping to the 2025 Act marked for the tax team - Criminal references: Complaint templates cite IPC sections; BNS equivalents proposed for offences after 1 July 2024 - Deliverable: 71 redlined templates and a change log in Excel Prompt to try (Find stale references): Review every template in this matter and list each reference to a repealed or replaced law, including the Income-tax Act 1961, the IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act, and the labour laws replaced by the four Labour Codes, with the clause and page. Propose the updated reference where the mapping is clear and mark the rest for review. Sample documents (2): Firm template pack (employment, tax indemnity, criminal complaint); The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette of India). #### Training juniors on the firm's method Problem: Juniors learn by having their drafts marked up, and a partner's markup rarely says why. The same mistakes return with every new batch of associates, and the partner who knows the method for a due diligence report or a reply to a legal notice is too busy to write it down. When that partner is on leave or moves on, the method goes with them. How Justis handles it: Write the method down once as a skill: the checklist for a notice reply, the structure of a diligence report, the questions to ask before a limitation opinion. Juniors attach it to a message with an @-mention, and Justis follows it step by step on their matter. Justis also reviews a junior's draft against the skill before it reaches the partner and returns a review note: each point it would change, the reason and the source, so the associate learns the rule rather than just the correction. Example output: - Skill: Reply to a legal notice: the firm's 12-point method, written by a partner - Draft reviewed: Associate's reply to a recovery notice, 6 pages - Points raised: 7, for example, denial of paras 3 to 7 is general, not specific; admission in para 4 should be withdrawn - Missing: No reservation of rights; no reply to the demand for interest - Review note: Each point with the reason and the page of the notice it answers - Deliverable: Tracked changes in Word and a review note for the associate Prompt to try (Review a junior's draft): Review this draft reply to a legal notice against the firm's notice reply skill. For every point you would change, give the change, the reason and the paragraph of the notice it answers, list anything the reply does not deal with, and return the draft with tracked changes. Sample documents (3): Associate's draft reply to the Tidewell recovery notice; Firm style guide, playbooks and methods; New matter intake papers: Sarvodaya Polymers v. Tidewell Resins. #### Client meetings into instructions and file notes Problem: The instructions that decide a matter are given in a meeting: the figure the client will settle at, the facts they did not put in writing, the decision taken on the call. The file note is written days later from memory, if at all. When the client later disputes what was agreed, or a new associate joins the matter, there is nothing reliable to go back to. How Justis handles it: Record the meeting on a phone, or save the audio of a call, and upload it to the matter. Justis transcribes it in English, Hindi and other Indian languages, labels speakers where the turn-taking is clear and leaves the wording untouched. It then prepares the file note from the transcript: the instructions given, the decisions taken, the open questions and the next steps, each tied to the point in the recording, and drafts the documents that follow from it. Example output: - Recording: 52-minute client meeting in Hindi and English - Instructions: Settle if the counterparty pays ₹1.2 crore within 60 days; no admission of liability - Decided: Without-prejudice offer to go this week, approved by the managing director - Open question: Whether the 2024 side letter was ever countersigned - Next steps: Draft the offer; ask the client for the countersigned side letter - Deliverable: File note and a draft without-prejudice offer letter in Word Prompt to try (Meeting to file note): Transcribe this client meeting and prepare a file note: the instructions given, the decisions taken, the open questions and the next steps, each with the point in the recording. Then draft the without-prejudice offer letter from those instructions. Sample documents (1): Client meeting transcript: Aravalli Infra v. Konark Buildtech. #### Due diligence at a scale the team could not staff Problem: A data room of four hundred documents lands on a deal with a three-week timeline, and the team is four associates. The review splits between them, each reads differently, and the red flags report is assembled from four spreadsheets in four formats. The partner then spends the last two days checking whether a finding is really in the document it cites. How Justis handles it: Tabular review runs the firm's diligence questions across every document at once and returns one grid, with the page behind every answer, so every associate works from the same finished first pass rather than an empty spreadsheet. Justis then drafts the red flags report from the grid in the firm's format, each finding linked to its page, and the associates spend their time on the documents that need a lawyer's reading. Example output: - Data room: 412 documents, 18 diligence questions - Change of control: Consent required in 23 contracts, 4 of them material by revenue - Title: 2 properties with gaps in the chain of title; one sale deed unregistered - Employment: Standing orders not updated for the Industrial Relations Code 2020 - Stamping: 7 agreements appear under-stamped under the state stamp act - Deliverable: Excel grid and a red flags report in Word, each finding cited Prompt to try (Diligence grid): Run the firm's diligence questions across every document in this data room, with the page for each answer. Then draft a red flags report in our format, grouping findings by severity, each linked to the page it rests on. Sample documents (2): Project Kestrel data room extract (Coromandel Precision Castings); Firm style guide, playbooks and methods. #### Client reporting across a portfolio of matters Problem: A client with forty matters at the firm wants a quarterly report: where each matter stands, what happened, what comes next and the exposure. The information is in forty projects, several trackers and the associates' memories. The report is always late, always assembled by the most junior person on the team, and always checked line by line by a partner. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the latest orders, correspondence and file notes in each matter and builds the status grid: forum, stage, last event, next date, exposure and the action required, each cell cited to the document it came from. It drafts the covering report in the firm's format and a short slide deck for the client's review meeting, and marks every matter where the file does not show a recent event, so the partner knows which ones to check. Example output: - Matters: 42 matters for one client across 5 practice groups - Status grid: 7 columns per matter, each cell cited to the order or letter it came from - Movement this quarter: 11 matters listed, 3 disposed, 2 new notices received - Exposure: ₹14.3 crore across pending claims, largest single claim ₹4.1 crore - Check: 6 matters with no document added in 90 days, marked for the associate - Deliverable: Excel tracker, a covering report in Word and a 10-slide deck Prompt to try (Quarterly client report): For each of this client's matters, give the forum, the stage, the last event, the next date, the exposure and the action required, citing the document each answer comes from. Then draft the quarterly report in our format and a short slide deck, and flag any matter with no recent document. Sample documents (2): Matter status list and file log: Nilgiri Consumer Brands (Q2 FY 2026-27); Firm style guide, playbooks and methods. #### Engagement letters from the approval note Problem: Once a conflict is cleared, the engagement letter is drafted from the partner's approval note, the client's email and the firm's template, usually by whoever is free. The client's name is copied from the email signature, the scope from memory, and the fee terms from the note even where the note proposes something the firm cannot agree to. The letter is the contract the firm will rely on when a fee is disputed or the scope is stretched, so these errors surface at the worst time. How Justis handles it: Justis drafts the letter on the firm's own template from the approval note, the client's email and the board resolution. It takes the client's legal name and CIN from the resolution, writes the scope and exclusions from the note, and lists anything the client asked for that the note has not priced. It checks each term against the law and the firm's policy as it goes: a fee contingent on the result is barred for advocates by the Bar Council of India Rules, and a business-entity client pays GST on legal services under reverse charge. The open points come back as a short note for the partner. Example output: - Client: Vaitarna Agri Exports Private Limited, CIN from the board resolution; the client's email says 'LLP' - Scope: Defence and counterclaim in the Seabridge arbitration; s.9, s.34 and s.37 proceedings excluded - Not priced: Reply to the DGGI show cause notice of 11.09.2026, put in scope by the note: left out, for a separate quote from the tax team - Success fee: 2% of the reduction in the award removed: Rule 20, Section II, Chapter II, Part VI of the BCI Rules bars fees contingent on the result - GST: Template's 'GST at 18% will be added' replaced: the client is a business entity and pays under reverse charge, Notification 13/2017-CT (Rate) - Deliverable: Engagement letter in Word on the firm's template, with a note of 4 points for the partner Prompt to try (Draft the engagement letter): Draft the engagement letter for this new matter on the firm's template, using the approval note, the client's email and the board resolution. Use the client's exact legal name and CIN, set out the scope, exclusions, team and fees, and list for the partner every term in the note or the template that conflicts with the Bar Council of India Rules, the GST position or the client's request. Sample documents (2): Engagement approval note and client email — Vaitarna Agri Exports (arbitration defence); Firm engagement letter template and policy on client engagement terms. #### Client onboarding and KYC forms from the client's papers Problem: Before a matter number is opened, someone fills the firm's onboarding form for the new client: legal name, CIN, PAN, GSTIN, registered office, directors, the shareholders behind the company and the authorised signatory. The client sends a bundle of certificates, printouts and photocopies, and the form is typed from them by hand. A transposed digit in the CIN or a PAN that does not match the GSTIN ends up on every invoice and engagement letter, and a foreign shareholder nobody noticed is the one the conflict check needed. How Justis handles it: Upload the blank form and the client's KYC bundle. Justis fills the form as a Word document, each entry with the document and page it came from, and leaves a field blank with a reason when the bundle does not answer it. It cross-checks the papers against each other as it fills: the CIN on the certificate against the resolution, the PAN inside the GSTIN against the PAN card, the registered office on the MCA master data against the address the client wants invoiced, and the shareholders and directors against the conflicts register. Example output: - Form filled: Firm's form KR-02, 5 sections, each entry cited to the KYC bundle page - CIN: Certificate and MCA data: U01403MH2016PTC284591; the board resolution says U01403MH2016PTC284519 - PAN and GSTIN: PAN card: AAGCV5127M; the PAN inside GSTIN 27AAGCV5172M1Z9 is AAGCV5172M - Registered office: Palghar since 01.04.2025 per MCA master data; GST certificate and the client's invoicing request still give Vashi - Shareholders over 10%: Vaitarna Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore, 38%, with a nominee director; ultimate parent named as Sato Agri Corporation, Japan - Deliverable: Completed onboarding form in Word and a list of 4 discrepancies to resolve before the engagement letter issues Prompt to try (Fill the onboarding form): Fill the firm's blank client onboarding and KYC form for this client from the KYC documents. Produce the completed form as a Word document with the source page for each entry, leave a field blank with a reason where the documents do not answer it, and list every point where the documents disagree with each other or with the board resolution. Sample documents (4): Blank form — Firm's new client onboarding and KYC form (companies and LLPs); Client KYC documents — Vaitarna Agri Exports Private Limited; Engagement approval note and client email — Vaitarna Agri Exports (arbitration defence); Client and matter list (conflicts register export). #### Reviewing a client's panel counsel terms Problem: Large clients send their panel terms for signature: unlimited liability, a fee holdback until the matter is won, payment in four months, and a bar on acting for anyone in their industry. The relationship partner wants to sign quickly, and nobody reads the terms against the firm's own policy until a fee dispute. Some of these terms are commercial, but some the firm cannot agree to at all: an advocate's fee cannot depend on the result, and access to the firm's files would expose other clients' privileged material. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the client's terms against the firm's engagement policy and the law, marks every departure in the Word file as a tracked change with a comment giving the reason, and offers the firm's acceptable position as the replacement text. It separates the points the partner can trade from the ones the firm cannot accept, and drafts a short covering note to the client's General Counsel explaining the changes. Example output: - Terms reviewed: Nilgiri Panel Counsel Engagement Terms 2026, 13 clauses, against the firm's 12-point policy - Cannot accept: Cl. 3.3: 10% of fees held back unless the matter is won; an outcome-linked fee is barred by Rule 20 of the BCI Rules - Liability: Cl. 6: unlimited liability and an indemnity for all direct and indirect losses; replaced with the 12-month fee cap - Tax and payment: Cl. 4 'inclusive of all taxes, including GST' corrected to reverse charge; cl. 5 payment in 120 days changed to 60 - Firm's know-how and conflicts: Cl. 7 assigns the firm's templates and precedents; cl. 8 bars any FMCG client for two years after the term - Also changed: Retrospective 15% discount, 6-hour breach notice, audit of 'any matter' files, no pay for unbilled work on termination, arbitrator appointed by the client alone Prompt to try (Mark up panel terms): Review the client's panel counsel terms against the firm's policy on client engagement terms. Mark every departure as a tracked change with a comment giving the reason, separate what the firm cannot accept from what is negotiable, and draft a short covering note to the client's General Counsel. Sample documents (2): Nilgiri Consumer Brands — Panel Counsel Engagement Terms 2026 (client's draft); Firm engagement letter template and policy on client engagement terms. #### Handing over a matter from the file Problem: An associate leaves on Friday and sends a handover email from memory. The rejoinder date in it is a week later than the tribunal's order, an undertaking given to the tribunal is described as done when it is half done, and the client's email asking for advice on a settlement offer is not mentioned at all. The partner and the new associate have no way to know which lines of the handover are right without reading the whole file again. How Justis handles it: Justis reads the matter file itself, not the handover note: orders, procedural directions, correspondence, file notes and fee records. It builds the handover from the record, with every date, undertaking and open request tied to the document it comes from. It then checks the departing associate's note against that record line by line, lists what is wrong or missing, and drafts the first email to the client from the new associate. Example output: - File read: Arbitration KIA/2025/0391: s.11 order, disclosure, Procedural Orders 1 and 2, s.17 order, tribunal's fee letter, client emails, file notes - Next deadline: Rejoinder and reply to counterclaim by 09.10.2026 under PO2, 'no further extension'; the handover note says 16.10.2026 - Undertaking: Temperature logs for January to June due 30.09.2026 (PO2 para 3); client sent January to March only and nothing was produced; the note says 'done' - Unanswered: Client's email of 22.09.2026 on Polaris's ₹62 lakh settlement offer, answer wanted by 10 October; not in the note - Money: Second tribunal deposit of ₹3,75,000 due 15.10.2026, not yet requested from the client; retainer used up and ₹2,85,000 of September time unbilled - Deliverable: Handover memo with a dated action list, corrections to the note, and a draft email to the client Prompt to try (Matter handover): Read the matter file and prepare a handover memo: where the matter stands, every deadline and undertaking with its source, open client requests and money matters. Then check the departing associate's handover note against the file, list what is wrong or missing, and draft the first email to the client from the new associate. Sample documents (2): Matter file — Indrayani Foods v. Polaris Cold Storage (arbitration, KIA/2025/0391); Departing associate's handover note — Indrayani Foods v. Polaris Cold Storage. #### Checking pre-bills against the client's billing guidelines Problem: A portfolio client's guidelines cap the hourly rates, refuse block-billed and vague entries, pay for one lawyer at an internal conference, reimburse no overheads, pay travel at half rate and expect GST under reverse charge. Each month's pre-bills are checked against them by a partner reading a pile of drafts the evening before they go out. Whatever the partner misses, the client's legal operations team finds, and the whole invoice is held while one line is disputed. How Justis handles it: Tabular review puts each pre-bill in a row and asks the same questions of every one: does the total add up, which entries exceed the rate cap, which are block-billed or vague, which items the guidelines do not pay for, how GST is treated, and which entries fall outside the billing period. Every cell cites the line it came from. The partner reads down the columns instead of through every draft, and the Associate can turn the grid into corrected pre-bills or a short note to accounts. Example output: - Rows: 4 September pre-bills for Nilgiri matters NCB-02, 04, 05 and 07 - Rate above cap: NCB-02: partner at ₹18,000 an hour against the ₹15,000 cap, ₹6,000 over on 2 hours - Block or vague: NCB-02: 6.5 hours across five tasks on 04.09; 'Work on file' for 1.5 hours on 18.09 - Not payable: NCB-04: internal conference billed for three lawyers; ₹4,200 photocopying and binding. NCB-05: 8 hours of travel at full rate - GST: NCB-05 charges IGST of ₹35,172; the client is a business entity and pays GST on legal services under reverse charge - Arithmetic and period: NCB-07: entries add up to ₹1,08,000, total stated ₹1,26,000; one entry dated 26.08.2026 in a September bill Prompt to try (Pre-bill review): Check each pre-bill against the client's billing guidelines: recompute the total, list entries above the rate cap, block-billed or vague entries, items the client does not pay for, the GST treatment and any entry outside the billing period, citing the line for each. Opens in: Tabular Review, one column per question (Matter and period, Hours billed, Stated fees, Recomputed fees, Totals add up, Rates above cap, Block-billed or vague, Items the client does not pay, GST treatment, Outside billing period). Sample documents (4): Pre-bill, September 2026 — NCB-02 consumer class complaint (NCDRC); Pre-bill, September 2026 — NCB-04 trade mark suit (Delhi High Court); Pre-bill, September 2026 — NCB-05 industrial dispute (Industrial Tribunal, Coimbatore); Pre-bill, September 2026 — NCB-07 Bengaluru warehouse eviction (Small Causes Court). Questions: - Q: Can it run conflict checks against our records? A: It compares the parties it finds in a matter's papers against a client and matter list you upload, such as an export from your practice management system in Excel. It does not connect to that system directly, and clearing a conflict stays with the partner. - Q: Can we build a precedent bank from our past work? A: Yes. Upload signed agreements of one type and tabular review compares their clauses in one grid with the page for each answer. Justis groups the variants and drafts a clause library with notes, which your knowledge management team edits and keeps. - Q: Will every associate draft to the same standard? A: Save the firm's positions as a playbook and its methods as skills, and every associate's draft is checked against the same standard, with departures returned as tracked changes. A partner still reviews what goes out. - Q: Does it help when the law changes? A: It finds every reference to a repealed or replaced law across your templates, such as the Income-tax Act 1961, the old criminal codes or the labour laws replaced by the Labour Codes, and proposes updates as tracked changes, marking the ones that need a lawyer's judgment. - Q: Can it prepare client reports and presentations? A: Yes. It builds a status grid across a client's matters with each cell cited to its source, and drafts the covering report in Word, the tracker in Excel and a slide deck for the review meeting. Nothing is sent to the client by Justis. - Q: What should a law firm try first? A: A precedent comparison. Upload twenty signed agreements of one type, ask for the key clauses compared across all of them with the page for each, and check a few against the documents. It shows quickly where the firm's practice has drifted and what the bank should say. ## How Justis compares (from each company's public website, as of 27 September 2026) ### Justis vs ChatGPT (https://askjustis.com/compare/chatgpt) ChatGPT: OpenAI's general-purpose assistant, with a free plan and paid plans from Go to Pro, and Business and Enterprise plans for teams. - Who it is for: Justis — Indian lawyers of every size: solo advocates, chambers, boutique and large firms, in-house teams. ChatGPT — Everyone; a general-purpose assistant for any task. - Pricing: Justis — Published: free 7-day trial, Pro ₹999 / month, Ultra ₹3,999 / month, Custom for firms. ChatGPT — Published in US dollars: Free, Go $8 / month, Plus $20 / month, Pro from $100 / month; Business from $20 per seat; Enterprise priced by sales. - Getting started: Justis — Sign up with Google and start on a real matter in minutes; no sales call. ChatGPT — Sign up for free. - Indian case law: Justis — Supreme Court and High Court judgments built in and free to search on every plan, with orders from 25 High Courts and 22,000+ Acts, rules and regulator documents; answers cite the paragraph. ChatGPT — No Indian case-law or statute database; answers can draw on web search. OpenAI's legal offering, Astra for Law, indexes US case law and statutes and is offered to selected US law firms. - Training on your data: Justis — Your documents are never used to train shared models. ChatGPT — Consumer plans (Free, Go, Plus, Pro) may use conversations for training unless you turn off "Improve the model for everyone"; Business and Enterprise do not train on business data by default. - Legal workflow: Justis — Matters, Documents Vault, tabular review across hundreds of documents, playbooks, redlines as tracked changes in Word, memory of your drafting style. ChatGPT — General chat with file uploads (Free: up to 3 uploads a day), search and deep research; no named legal-review or tabular-review feature. - Sources: https://chatgpt.com/pricing/, https://openai.com/business/pricing/, https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7730893-data-controls-faq, https://openai.com/enterprise-privacy/, https://help.openai.com/en/articles/20001528-astra-for-law, https://help.openai.com/en/articles/8555545-file-uploads-faq ### Justis vs Claude (https://askjustis.com/compare/claude) Claude: Anthropic's general-purpose assistant, with a free plan, Pro and Max for individuals, Team and Enterprise for organisations, and a Claude for Legal offering. - Who it is for: Justis — Indian lawyers of every size: solo advocates, chambers, boutique and large firms, in-house teams. Claude — Everyone; a general-purpose assistant, with a Claude for Legal offering for legal teams. - Pricing: Justis — Published: free 7-day trial, Pro ₹999 / month, Ultra ₹3,999 / month, Custom for firms. Claude — Published in US dollars: Free, Pro $20 / month, Max from $100 / month; Team from $20 per seat; Enterprise $20 per seat plus usage. - Getting started: Justis — Sign up with Google and start on a real matter in minutes; no sales call. Claude — Sign up for free. - Indian case law: Justis — Supreme Court and High Court judgments built in and free to search on every plan, with orders from 25 High Courts and 22,000+ Acts, rules and regulator documents; answers cite the paragraph. Claude — No Indian case-law or statute database; Claude for Legal surfaces case law through Thomson Reuters and does not mention India. - Training on your data: Justis — Your documents are never used to train shared models. Claude — Consumer plans (Free, Pro, Max) are listed as "Model training: Opt-out"; Team and Enterprise: none by default. - Legal workflow: Justis — Matters, Documents Vault, tabular review across hundreds of documents, playbooks, redlines as tracked changes in Word, memory of your drafting style. Claude — Legal plugins (commercial, corporate, IP, litigation), connectors to iManage, NetDocuments, Docusign, Ironclad and Thomson Reuters, and tracked-change redlining in Word. - Sources: https://claude.com/pricing, https://claude.com/solutions/legal, https://privacy.claude.com/en/articles/7996868-is-my-data-used-for-model-training, https://support.claude.com/en/articles/8241126-what-kinds-of-documents-can-i-upload-to-claude-ai ### Justis vs Gemini (https://askjustis.com/compare/gemini) Gemini: Google's general-purpose assistant, free with a Google Account, with Google AI Plus, Pro and Ultra plans priced in rupees in India. - Who it is for: Justis — Indian lawyers of every size: solo advocates, chambers, boutique and large firms, in-house teams. Gemini — Everyone; a general-purpose assistant, also inside Google Workspace. - Pricing: Justis — Published: free 7-day trial, Pro ₹999 / month, Ultra ₹3,999 / month, Custom for firms. Gemini — In rupees: Free, Google AI Plus ₹399 / month, Google AI Pro ₹1,950 / month, Google AI Ultra from ₹6,500 / month. - Getting started: Justis — Sign up with Google and start on a real matter in minutes; no sales call. Gemini — Free with a Google Account. - Indian case law: Justis — Supreme Court and High Court judgments built in and free to search on every plan, with orders from 25 High Courts and 22,000+ Acts, rules and regulator documents; answers cite the paragraph. Gemini — No Indian case-law or statute database; some answers show web sources ("not all responses include related links or sources"). - Training on your data: Justis — Your documents are never used to train shared models. Gemini — With Keep Activity on, Google uses your activity to improve its services, including training generative AI models; Workspace does not use customer data for training without permission. - Legal workflow: Justis — Matters, Documents Vault, tabular review across hundreds of documents, playbooks, redlines as tracked changes in Word, memory of your drafting style. Gemini — General chat with file uploads (up to 10 files per prompt), Deep Research and Canvas; no named legal feature. - Sources: https://gemini.google/subscriptions/?hl=en-IN, https://support.google.com/gemini/answer/13594961?hl=en, https://support.google.com/a/answer/15706919?hl=en, https://support.google.com/gemini/answer/14143489?hl=en, https://support.google.com/gemini/answer/14903178?hl=en ## US law library and US Law API US law (https://askjustis.com/us): the US Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, and every state's statutes, regulations, constitution and court rules, each with its citation and official source. The library is being prepared; browsing is not open yet. US Law API (https://askjustis.com/us/api): US statutes and regulations as JSON with citations and cross-references, for developers and legal AI. Access is by request: email help@askjustis.com. Questions: - Q: Can I browse US law on Justis? A: Not yet. The US library is being prepared and browsing is not open. Email help@askjustis.com and we will tell you when it opens. - Q: What will the US library cover? A: Federal law (the US Code and the Code of Federal Regulations) and, for every state, its statutes, regulations, constitution and court rules, each with its citation and official source. - Q: Is there an API for US statutes and regulations? A: Yes, on request. Email help@askjustis.com with what you are building. - Q: Is US tax law included? A: US tax sources have their own library and API: see askjustis.com/us/tax. ## Legal - Terms of Service: https://askjustis.com/terms - Privacy Policy: https://askjustis.com/privacy - Cancellation and Refund Policy: https://askjustis.com/refund-policy ## Contact - Email: help@askjustis.com - Book a demo: https://cal.com/nxsumityadav/askjustis