Debt-recovery litigation software for Indian law firms — built for both sides
A matter-management and AI-drafting workspace purpose-built for SARFAESI, DRT/DRAT, Section 138 NI Act, Order XXXVII summary suits, and loan-recovery arbitration — for firms representing banks, NBFCs and ARCs, and for firms defending borrowers and guarantors.
Creditor-side recovery, and borrower-side defence
Originally built for creditor-side firms, a dedicated Borrower-Defence module was subsequently added as a first-class part of the product — not an afterthought.
For banks, NBFCs & ARCs
- Section 13(2) SARFAESI demand notices and Section 13(4)/(8) auction sale notices
- DRT Original Applications, replications, evidence affidavits, and DRAT appeals
- Section 138 NI Act demand notices and complaints
- Execution applications, closure/satisfaction memos
- Arbitration invocation, arbitrator appointment, and award enforcement
- Portfolio-wide statutory clock heat-map with IBC moratorium interlock
For borrowers & guarantors
- Section 13(2) objections and Section 17 SARFAESI applications (SARFAESI-applicability gated)
- DRT written statements and guarantor discharge defences
- Section 138 replies, bail applications, and quashing petitions
- Order XXXVII leave-to-defend applications and written statements
- One-time settlement counter-proposals and redemption-opportunity checks
- Recovery-agent harassment complaints (RBI Fair Practices Code route)
Retrieval-grounded, and deliberately constrained
Real case-law retrieval and a fail-closed citation validator — the model would rather produce nothing than a fabricated citation.
Live case-law retrieval
Before every draft, the platform runs a targeted Indian Kanoon search keyed to that specific document type — a Section 17 application retrieves against Mardia Chemicals and the no-pre-deposit line of authority; a Section 138 defence retrieves against the Section 139 rebuttal cases.
A curated statutory core
SARFAESI, RDB Act, IBC and NI Act frameworks — with leading authorities including Mardia Chemicals, Satyawati Tondon, Transcore, CELIR v. Bafna Motors, Lalit Kumar Jain, and Rangappa — are built into the drafting engine as verified content.
A citation validator that fails closed
Every citation the model produces must carry a structured tag. A draft that fails validation is rejected outright rather than shown — the system would rather give you nothing than a plausible-looking fabricated citation.
Case-specific analysis, not just drafting
An account briefing, an IBC conflict check, a redemption-opportunity assessment, and an AI narrative layer over the firm’s own MIS figures — the numbers themselves are always computed in code, never left to the model.
A full audit log
Every AI interaction is logged, and every output carries a mandatory "AI draft — requires advocate review before filing or service" label with an appended service-and-validity checklist.
From a single dishonoured cheque to a multi-crore consortium exposure
The platform's drafting, clock, and portfolio logic are amount-agnostic — what changes is the forum, not whether the platform can help.
| Mechanism | Pecuniary floor | Ceiling |
|---|---|---|
| SARFAESI (secured) | Does not apply below ₹1 lakh (s. 31(g)); s. 13(4) enforcement additionally requires the amount due to exceed 20% of principal + interest | None |
| DRT / DRAT (RDB Act 1993) | Debt must exceed ₹20 lakh owed to a bank or notified financial institution | None |
| Civil suit / summary suit (Order XXXVII CPC) | The route below the DRT threshold, and for non-bank lenders | Local civil court's own pecuniary jurisdiction |
| Section 138 NI Act | No statutory floor or ceiling — the cheque amount governs | None |
| IBC — corporate insolvency | Default of at least ₹1 crore (s. 4) | None |
| Arbitration | No statutory threshold — governed by the loan agreement's clause | None |
What the platform deliberately does not do
A tool that overstates itself is worse than none.
Questions firms ask before switching
Does the Banking panel provide AI-powered legal research?
Yes. Before every draft, the platform runs a targeted Indian Kanoon case-law search specific to that document type, and a curated statutory core (SARFAESI Act 2002, RDB Act 1993, IBC 2016, and the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881) is built into the drafting engine as verified content. Every citation the model produces must carry a structured tag, and a draft that fails citation validation is rejected outright rather than shown.
What is the maximum matter size the platform can handle?
There is no upper limit — the drafting, clock, and portfolio logic are amount-agnostic, so a ₹500-crore consortium exposure is handled the same way as a ₹5-lakh one. What changes is the forum: SARFAESI applies above ₹1 lakh, DRT/DRAT above ₹20 lakh, and IBC corporate insolvency at a ₹1 crore default threshold.
Does the platform support both lenders and borrowers in a debt-recovery dispute?
Yes. It was originally built for creditor-side firms (banks, NBFCs, ARCs) and now includes a dedicated Borrower-Defence module — borrower and guarantor clients get their own intake fields, their own drafting library (SARFAESI objections, Section 17 applications, Section 138 defence, guarantor discharge, summary-suit defence), and their own statutory checks.
Is client case data stored on Nyaya Saathi's own servers?
No. Client case data (accounts, notices, documents, hearings, deadlines) is never stored in Nyaya Saathi's own database. It lives only in each firm's own Google Drive or OneDrive, reachable exclusively through that specific advocate's own OAuth-authorized access.
Which Indian debt-recovery laws does the platform cover?
The SARFAESI Act 2002, the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 (DRT/DRAT), Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (cheque dishonour), Order XXXVII CPC summary suits, loan-recovery arbitration, and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016's moratorium interlock with all of the above.
Does the platform file or serve legal documents automatically?
No. Every AI-generated output is labelled "AI draft — requires advocate review before filing or service." The platform drafts a first draft for a licensed advocate to review; it does not file, e-file, or serve anything itself, and it has no integration with eCourts or NJDG.
See it against your own matters
Set up your firm and run a real intake, or sign in if you already have an account.