How banking and finance lawyers use Justis AI
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.
01
Is every security actually perfected?
The 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.
| What comes back | Example |
|---|---|
| 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 |
Illustrative example. Names, figures and dates are invented; the provisions are real.
Run a tabular review of the loan file in this project. 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.
02
Negotiating the facility agreement
The 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.
| What comes back | Example |
|---|---|
| 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 |
Illustrative example. Names, figures and dates are invented; the provisions are real.
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.
03
Can the guarantors be held?
The 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.
| What comes back | Example |
|---|---|
| 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 |
Illustrative example. Names, figures and dates are invented; the provisions are real.
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.
04
SARFAESI: from demand notice to possession
The 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.
| Step | Example |
|---|---|
| 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 |
Illustrative example. Names, figures and dates are invented; the provisions are real.
Read the demand notice, the proof of service, the representation and our reply in this project. 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.
05
A section 7 petition against the corporate borrower
The 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.
| What comes back | Example |
|---|---|
| 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 |
Illustrative example. Names, figures and dates are invented; the provisions are real.
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.
06
An original application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal
The 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.
| What comes back | Example |
|---|---|
| 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 |
Illustrative example. Names, figures and dates are invented; the provisions are real.
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.
07
Answering a customer complaint before the Ombudsman
The 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.
| What comes back | Example |
|---|---|
| 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 |
Illustrative example. Names, figures and dates are invented; the provisions are real.
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.
Make it repeatable
Each borrower lives in its own project for the life of the facility. Every document you add is read as it lands, so the question asked on the day of default is answered across the whole file, from sanction to the last restructuring.
When the same work comes back, save it once. A playbook carries your bank's positions on facility terms; a workflow carries the steps from NPA to possession; a skill carries a method, such as the way you check perfection or compute limitation on acknowledgments, and you can attach it to any message.
- A perfection grid run on every loan file before disbursement
- A SARFAESI step check before every possession
- A limitation note with every acknowledgment before an IBC petition
- A facility agreement playbook applied to every borrower mark-up
- Borrower meetings and hearings, in English or Hindi, transcribed into the file
