Nyaya Saathi Pro  ·  Advocate Edition

Corporate Law Features Guide

A reference for corporate advocates — what the AI covers, how to use it effectively, and ready-to-use research prompts.

📅 May 2026 ⚖️ Indian Law Only 🔒 For Advocate Use

Coverage at a Glance

Area of Law Research Studio Drafting
NCLT — Oppression & Mismanagement (Sections 241-242 CA 2013) ✓ ✓ Company Petition
NCLT — Class Action (Section 245 CA 2013) ✓ —
NCLT — Winding Up (Sections 271-272 CA 2013) ✓ —
IBC 2016 — Financial Creditor (Section 7 CIRP) ✓ ✓ Section 7 Application
IBC 2016 — Operational Creditor (Section 9 CIRP) ✓ ✓ Section 9 Application
NCLAT Appeal — S.421 Companies Act 2013 / S.61 IBC 2016 ✓ ✓ NCLAT Appeal
IBC 2016 — Pre-Pack Insolvency (Section 54A, MSMEs) ✓ —
Commercial Courts Act 2015 — full suite ✓ ✓ Multiple types
SEBI Act / Insider Trading (PIT Regs 2015) / Takeover Code (SAST 2011) ✓ ✓ SCN Reply + SAT Appeal
FEMA 1999 / FDI / ECB / Compounding ✓ ✓ Compounding App + ED SCN Reply
Legal Opinion Letters ✓ ✓
Contract Review & Risk Audit ✓ —
Not covered: RBI banking supervision · IRDAI / insurance regulation · Competition Act 2002 / CCI · PMLA as a standalone practice area · Income tax / GST / indirect tax matters · International arbitration (UNCITRAL / ICC).

Research Studio — How to Use It for Corporate Matters

The Research Studio uses Claude Sonnet with dedicated specialist knowledge for each corporate law area, augmented by Indian Kanoon RAG — real-time retrieval of judgments from the Supreme Court, High Courts, NCLT, NCLAT, SAT, and TDSAT. Every response is structured in CREAC format (Conclusion → Rule → Explanation → Application → Counter-arguments) and includes precise statutory provisions, case citations tagged by confidence level, procedural guidance, and strategy advice oriented toward the side you are advising.

Tips by Practice Area

NCLT / Companies Act 2013

Provide the petitioner's shareholding percentage, total number of shareholders, and specific acts of oppression with dates. The AI structures grounds under Sections 241/242 and advises on the Section 244 locus threshold.

IBC 2016 — Insolvency Proceedings

Specify financial creditor or operational creditor upfront. For Section 9, always state whether a demand notice was sent, the date and mode of service, and the corporate debtor's exact reply — the Mobilox test analysis depends on these facts.

SEBI / Securities Law

Provide the SCN reference number, the specific Regulation alleged to have been violated (PIT / SAST / LODR), and the nature of the allegation. The AI maps applicable provisions, limitation arguments (3-year bar), and penalty mitigation factors.

FEMA / Foreign Exchange

Specify the transaction type (FDI allotment, ECB drawdown, share transfer to NRI), the specific contravention (late FCGPR filing, end-use violation, approval-route non-compliance), and whether it is an RBI compounding matter or an ED adjudication matter — this distinction is critical and the AI explains it precisely.

Drafting — Corporate Documents Supported

Access drafting via the ✍ Draft button in Research Studio (research-led, up to 8,000 tokens) or via My Cases → Draft accordion (case-file linked).

1   NCLT Company Petition — Oppression & Mismanagement

NCLTDraft Available

The AI generates: locus averment (Section 244 threshold), incorporation and shareholding structure, part-wise narrative of oppressive acts, Section 242 relief menu (share buyout / director removal / injunction / winding up in the alternative), and verification.

Sample prompt
"Draft an NCLT Company Petition under Sections 241 and 242 CA 2013. Petitioner: [Name], holding [X]% equity in [Company Name] (CIN: [X]). Respondents: (1) the company; (2) [Director Name]. Acts of oppression: [describe with dates]. Relief sought: purchase of petitioner's shares at fair value and removal of Respondent No. 2 as Director."

2   IBC Section 7 Application — Financial Creditor

IBCDraft Available

The AI generates: CP (IB) case heading, all four Parts of Form 1 (financial debt → default → proposed IRP → documents), NPA / default date averments, moratorium prayer under Section 14, and IRP appointment prayer.

Sample prompt
"Draft a Section 7 IBC application. Financial creditor: [Bank name]. Corporate debtor: [Company, CIN]. Debt: term loan of ₹[X] crore, disbursed [date], Loan Agreement dated [date]. Date of first default: [date]. Outstanding: ₹[X] crore. Proposed IRP: [Name, IBBI Reg. No.]."

3   IBC Section 9 Application — Operational Creditor

IBCDraft Available

The AI generates: all five Parts of Form 5, full jurisdictional pre-condition chain (demand notice → 10-day period → no payment → no genuine dispute), Mobilox test averment, and complete prayer sequence.

Sample prompt
"Draft a Section 9 IBC application. Operational creditor: [Supplier name]. Corporate debtor: [Company, CIN]. Debt: unpaid invoices for [goods/services] totalling ₹[X] lakh. Demand notice sent [date] by registered post, delivered [date]. No reply received within 10 days. Proposed IRP: [Name, IBBI Reg. No.]."

4   SAT Appeal — Section 15T SEBI Act

SEBIDraft Available

The AI generates: correct SAT case heading, full particulars of the impugned AO / Board order, numbered grounds covering AO error of law / natural justice violation / disproportionate penalty / perversity / limitation, stay application paragraph, and all standard SAT reliefs.

Sample prompt
"Draft a SAT Appeal under Section 15T SEBI Act. Appellant: [Name]. Impugned order: Adjudication Order No. [X] dated [date]. Penalty: ₹[X] for alleged violation of Regulation [X] PIT Regulations 2015. Grounds: (1) no UPSI at time of trade — information was public; (2) personal hearing denied; (3) penalty disproportionate."

5   Reply to SEBI Show Cause Notice

SEBIDraft Available

The AI generates: para-wise reply to every SCN allegation, substantive defences by violation type (insider trading: no UPSI / legitimate purpose / not a connected person; open offer: below 25% trigger / Regulation 10 exemption; LODR: technical default without investor prejudice), limitation argument if beyond 3 years, mandatory personal hearing request, and verification.

6   FEMA Compounding Application — Section 15 FEMA 1999

FEMADraft Available

The AI generates: all four Parts expected by the RBI Compounding Authority, specific FEMA Regulation and Notification citation, factual narrative of how the contravention arose and corrective steps taken, and the mandatory undertaking clause.

Sample prompt
"Draft a FEMA compounding application. Applicant: [Company name]. Contravention: delay in filing FCGPR — shares allotted [date], filing made [date], delay of [X] months. Amount: ₹[X] crore. Steps to regularise: late filing completed [date], acknowledged by AD bank."

7   Reply to ED Show Cause Notice — FEMA

FEMADraft Available

The AI generates: preliminary objections (vagueness of SCN, Section 16(4) limitation — 2-year bar), para-wise reply to each allegation, substantive defences (permissible transaction / AD bank compliance / RBI Master Direction permits / compounding closure), and PMLA separation argument where relevant.

8   NCLAT Appeal — Section 421 CA 2013 / Section 61 IBC 2016

NCLTIBCDraft Available

The AI generates appeals under both tracks — Companies Act 2013 (S.421, 30-day limitation from NCLT order) and IBC 2016 (S.61, 30-day limitation, grounds restricted to Essar Steel list). Output includes: NCLAT case heading, full particulars of impugned NCLT order, numbered grounds (legal error / procedural impropriety / perversity / jurisdiction), stay/interim relief application, and standard NCLAT prayers. For IBC appeals the AI flags the Essar Steel (2020) restriction on re-agitating commercial wisdom of CoC.

Sample prompt
"Draft an NCLAT Appeal under Section 421 CA 2013. Appellant: [Name], Petitioner in NCLT Company Petition No. [X]/2025. Impugned order: NCLT [Bench] order dated [date] dismissing the petition for alleged non-compliance with Section 244 locus threshold. Grounds: (1) NCLT miscalculated the 10% threshold by excluding preference shares; (2) personal hearing denied before dismissal. Relief: set aside impugned order and remand for fresh hearing."

Key Workflows

Workflow A — Minority Shareholder Dispute: NCLT Petition

  1. Verify locus Research Studio → "Does my client holding [X]% equity in [Company] meet the Section 244 CA 2013 threshold to file an oppression petition?"
  2. Map the grounds "These acts occurred: [describe]. Do they constitute oppression under Section 241(1)(a) or conduct prejudicial to the company under Section 241(1)(b)?"
  3. Draft petition My Cases → open the matter → Draft accordion → NCLT Company Petition (Sections 241-242).
  4. Interim relief strategy "What interim relief can NCLT grant before hearing — can it restrain the majority from further share allotments or asset alienation?"

Workflow B — Operational Creditor: Filing Section 9

  1. Verify threshold Confirm outstanding debt exceeds ₹1 crore (Section 4 IBC — MCA notification, 24 March 2020).
  2. Mobilox test Research Studio → "I sent a demand notice on [date]. The Corporate Debtor replied on [date] saying [describe reply]. Is this a genuine pre-existing dispute under the Mobilox test?"
  3. Confirm IRP Obtain proposed IRP's IBBI registration number and written consent letter before filing.
  4. Draft and file My Cases → Draft → IBC Section 9 Application. File at the NCLT Bench for the CD's registered office (Section 60 IBC).

Workflow C — Defending a SEBI SCN (Insider Trading)

  1. Map the violation Research Studio → "SEBI SCN No. [X] alleges insider trading under Regulation 4(1) PIT Regulations 2015. The trade was [X] shares on [date]. Was the quarterly result (announced [date]) UPSI at the time of the trade?"
  2. Check limitation "The alleged contravention occurred [date]. SCN issued [date]. Is this within the 3-year limitation period?"
  3. Draft reply ✍ Draft button → type reply instructions → generates structured para-wise reply with all defences and mandatory personal hearing request.
  4. SAT Appeal if needed If the AO order is adverse, file within 45 days (Section 15T). My Cases → Draft → SAT Appeal.

Workflow D — FEMA Compounding with RBI

  1. Identify contravention Research Studio → "My client allotted shares to a US investor on [date] but filed FCGPR only on [date] — [X] months late. What FEMA Regulation is violated and what is the compounding process?"
  2. Confirm forum "Is my client's contravention subject to ED adjudication or RBI compounding?" — critical before filing.
  3. Regularise first Complete the late filing and obtain AD bank acknowledgement before submitting the compounding application.
  4. Draft and submit ✍ Draft button → FEMA Compounding Application → submit to RBI Regional Office.
  5. Check PMLA "Does this delay in FCGPR filing create PMLA exposure? Can ED treat this as a predicate FEMA offence?"

Citation Reliability in Corporate Law

SourceAI ConfidenceWhat the AI Does
IBC — 5 landmark SC cases (listed below) High Cited directly with [REF: CASE]
NCLT / NCLAT orders Low Marked [UNCERTAIN:] — verify before filing
SEBI Act sections High Cited directly by section number
SAT / HC orders on SEBI matters Low Marked [UNCERTAIN:] — verify on sebi.gov.in
FEMA Regulations / RBI Master Directions High Cited by regulation name (statutory — safe)
ATFE / FEMA case law Low Marked [UNCERTAIN:] — rely on RBI Directions instead

Citation Verification — SC 2026 & Delhi HC 2025 Requirements

The AI applies two mandatory verification checks on every cited case:

  1. SC 2026 cross-verify duty — Before relying on any Supreme Court judgment, the AI flags whether a subsequent SC bench has doubted, distinguished, or overruled it. Citations with unresolved doubt are marked [UNCERTAIN: — verify finality].
  2. DHC 2025 / PD 178 finality check — The AI will not cite a Delhi HC judgment as good law if it has been stayed or reversed by the Supreme Court. Such citations are explicitly flagged.

These checks mean you can rely on [REF: CASE] citations in research output for substantive positions. Always independently verify before filing — the AI is a research tool, not a legal opinion.

Research Output Structure — CREAC

Every Research Studio response follows the five-section CREAC structure:

  1. Conclusion — Direct answer to your question (one paragraph)
  2. Rule — Applicable statutes, regulations, and binding precedents
  3. Explanation — How courts and tribunals have interpreted the rule (ratio only — no obiter without flagging)
  4. Application — How the rule applies to your specific facts
  5. Counter-arguments — Arguments the other side will raise and responses

The 5 IBC Supreme Court Cases — Cite with Confidence

Ready-to-Use Research Prompts

IBC Section 9 — Admissibility Check

Research StudioIBC

I represent an Operational Creditor intending to file a Section 9 IBC application. Operational Creditor: [Name — supplier / service provider / employee] Corporate Debtor: [Company name] Nature of debt: [goods supplied / services rendered / unpaid dues] Amount outstanding: ₹[X] (confirm above ₹1 crore threshold) Date of default: [date] Demand notice under Section 8: - Sent: [date] by [registered post / email / hand delivery] - Delivered: [date] - CD's response: [No reply / Replied on [date] saying: [brief content]] Please advise: 1. Is this a genuine pre-existing dispute defeating the application (Mobilox test)? 2. Technical defects in the demand notice under Section 8? 3. Correct NCLT Bench (Section 60 IBC — CD's registered office)? 4. Documents required with Form 5? 5. Strongest argument the CD will raise against admission and how to pre-empt it?

NCLT Oppression — Grounds Assessment

Research StudioNCLT

I am advising a minority shareholder in an oppression and mismanagement dispute under Sections 241-242 CA 2013. Client's holding: [X]% equity out of [N] total equity shareholders Company: [Name], private limited, incorporated [year] Acts of oppression alleged: 1. [Describe with date — e.g., majority shareholder removed client as director without notice on [date]] 2. [Describe — e.g., funds diverted to related-party company at below-market rates, dated [date]] 3. [Describe — e.g., AGM not held for [X] years; financial statements withheld] Please advise: 1. Does my client meet the Section 244 locus threshold (10% equity or 100 members)? 2. Do these acts constitute oppression under Section 241(1)(a) or prejudice under Section 241(1)(b)? 3. Most appropriate relief under Section 242 on these facts? 4. Urgency justifying an interim injunction from NCLT? 5. Should winding up in the alternative be included?

SEBI SCN — Defence Mapping

Research StudioSEBI

I received a SEBI Show Cause Notice and need to formulate a defence. SCN Reference No.: [X], dated [date] Issued by: [Adjudicating Officer / Whole Time Member] Alleged violation: [Regulation — e.g., Regulation 4(1) SEBI (PIT) Regulations 2015] Nature of allegation: [e.g., traded shares of [Company] on [date] while in possession of UPSI] Penalty proposed: ₹[amount] My client: [director / promoter / connected person / listed company officer] Key defence facts: [e.g., information was in public domain on [date] before the trade] Please advise: 1. What must SEBI prove for this specific regulation — list the ingredients? 2. Strongest available defences on these facts? 3. Limitation argument (3-year bar from date of contravention)? 4. Mitigating factors to reduce the penalty? 5. SAT appeal process if the AO order is adverse?

FEMA Compounding — Forum & Process

Research StudioFEMA

I am advising a client on a FEMA compounding matter. Client type: [Indian company / individual / LLP] Transaction: [FDI received / ECB borrowed / shares transferred to non-resident] Nature of contravention: [e.g., FCGPR not filed within 30 days — shares allotted [date], filing made [date], delay of [X] months] [OR: prior RBI approval not obtained before [describe] — approval route required] [OR: ECB funds used for [purpose] — restricted end-use under RBI Master Direction] Amount of foreign exchange: USD / INR [amount] Steps to regularise: [late filing completed [date] / approval obtained / funds repatriated] Please advise: 1. Which specific FEMA provision / RBI Regulation is violated? 2. Is compounding with RBI (Section 15 FEMA) correct, or should this go to ED? 3. Compounding process — documents, timeline, expected compounding amount? 4. Any PMLA exposure to address separately with ED? 5. Conditions precedent before filing the compounding application?
Professional Review Mandatory. All AI-generated research and drafts are a structured starting point. They must be reviewed by a qualified senior advocate before filing. Professional judgment on facts, strategy, and court-specific practice remains with the advocate.
© 2026 LegalAidAI  ·  Nyaya Saathi Pro  ·  Advocate Edition
For internal use by subscribed advocates only. Not for public distribution.