Sign inRequest access

Early access

Your AI litigation associate.

For junior advocates and small litigation teams on district-court boards. One agent per matter reads the file, verifies authorities, drafts hearing strategy, and re-plans when a new order lands.

Luthor prepares the work. Counsel decides.

Request accessSee how it works ↓
Built for district-court practice
  • s.138 NI Act
  • Bail
  • MACT
  • Matrimonial
  • Rent & eviction
  • Consumer
Sharma v. Verma · s.138 NI Act
One agent on this matterDistrict Court, Saket · next hearing 4 AugWorkingUp to date

  • Complaint, statutory notice and postal track, the dishonour memo, and the respondent’s written statement. Dates pulled into a chronology; four pages flagged as illegible for counsel to re-scan.

  • Searched on jurisdiction of the drawee branch and on notice validity. Nothing left the device beyond the redacted query; party names never form part of an external search.

  • Each citation was opened and the quoted proposition matched against the reported text. Rajesh Agarwal v. Union Bank could not be retrieved, so nothing in the draft relies on it.

  • Fifteen days from service of notice to accrual, then one month to file. Computed by date arithmetic, never by the model, and shown with the clause it comes from.

  • Six issues ordered by what the court is likely to take first, each carrying the authority it rests on. A senior-advocate review pass runs over the draft before it reaches you.

Hearing strategyDrafting counsel
  • Press jurisdiction, the drawee branch is at Nehru PlaceDashrath Rup Singh Rathod
  • Meet the maintainability objection on fresh noticeMSR Leathers
  • Seek costs for the third adjournment sought by the respondent
✓ 3 of 4 authorities verifiedSee how they were checked

Start with the facts.

Write what happened in your own words. Luthor turns it into a clear first plan.

LuthorNew matter

Try a starting point

Choose one, or write your own.

See the cases behind it.

Every conclusion stays tied to the cases behind it. Open any citation to see how Luthor used it.

Sharma v. Registrar3 sources checked
Authorities usedSelect a case to see how it affects the answer.1 needs review
How Luthor used this

Used for the history of territorial jurisdiction. Luthor flags the later statutory amendment before this proposition is relied on.

Conclusion based on 3 checked sourcesThe unverified citation stays visible, but is not relied on.

The plan stays current.

When a new order lands, Luthor updates the work ahead and shows you what changed.

Sharma v. RegistrarPlan current
New order · 22 JulThe court directed both parties to address maintainability.3 changes
Plan changesSelect a row to see why it changed.
Why it changedOrder dated 22 Jul · paragraph 6

The court directed both parties to address maintainability before the next hearing.

Request early access

Luthor is in private beta for Indian district-court advocates. Leave your work email on the next screen — we write back when a workspace is ready. Already invited? Sign in to open your workspace.

Request accessSign in