Purpose built. Court ready.

Your whole practice in one place: the record, the research, the drafting, the hearings.

Book a demo

Trusted by lawyers across courts and tribunals

The problem

The record is bigger than the week you have.

Every matter arrives as thousands of pages. The hearing date doesn’t move.

Mehra v. Saptarishi

1,284documents
40,000+pages to read
5days to next hearing

ANNEXUREP-7Vol. I p.88

ANNEXURED-12Vol. III p.702

Paperbook Vol. I–IV

Bundle 3

PW-1 Evidence

PDFPlaint_with_Annex.pdf212 pp · Annex. P-1–P-40

XLSXBOQ_Variations.xlsx6 sheets · Annex. P-11

PDFAnnex_D-31_Report.pdf96 pp · March 2024

ANNEXURED-31Vol. IV p.1104

EMLRE: Load calcs.eml3 attachments · 12.02.2023

DOCXReplication_v3.docx38 pp · draft

PDFSite_Diary_Jan-Jun.pdf612 pp · Annex. P-23

TIFFSite_Photos_07.tiff214 images · Annex. P-27

MSGFW: Beam spec.msg2 attachments · Annex. D-9

EMLCorrespondence bundle 3FromVikram Nair14.03.2023ToArjun MehraRE: Load path — revised

PDFPW-1_Cross-Exam.pdf388 pp · evidence record

DOCXAffidavit_PW-1.docx24 pp · Ex. PW-1/1–44

PDFWork_Order_114.pdf71 pp · Annex. P-4

EMLCorrespondence_3.eml1,106 emails · Bundle 3

EMLCorrespondence bundle 3FromArjun Mehra02.06.2023ToSite teamSnag list — east elevation

PDFGFC_Dwgs_RevC.pdf58 sheets · Annex. D-12

XLSXRA_Bills_Tracker.xlsx912 rows · Annex. P-15

PDFWritten_Statement.pdf340 pp · Defendant

DOCXAdmission_Denial.docx41 pp · Order XI CPC

PDFLC_Report_2024.pdf530 pp · with exhibits

TIFFInvoices_Scanned.tiff188 pp · ₹3,42,18,500

PDFDefendant_Docs_V5.pdf2,480 pp · D-1–D-35

Readable before the hearing

Next date of hearingFriday · 10:30

Time used82%

Record read6%

Before & after

From the pile to the filing.

The same 1,284 documents — read, pin-cited and put in order.

Before: a tall stack of case papers held with coloured clips, waiting on a desk

Before1,284 unread

Matters / Mehra v. Saptarishi / List of Dates & Events

Confidential

1,284 / 1,284 read

List of Dates & Events

214 events · 312 citations

12.01.2022

Work order signed; bay-3 load tolerance fixed.

Annex. P-4 cl. 7.1
03.03.2022

Site engineer emails Mehra: cracking at bay 3.

Corr. bundle 3, p. 41
Mar 2022

PW-1 deposes he first learnt of it “mid-March.”

PW-1 XXN 214:6–19 Conflicts with Corr. 3
09.06.2022

Legal notice served on Saptarishi re bay 3.

Annex. P-12
04.03.2024

Def. engineer: bay-3 loads 18% over tolerance.

Annex. D-31 ¶4.2Annex. D-31 ¶6.1Key
14.03.2024

PW-1 cross-examined before the Local Commissioner.

Order dt. 12.01.2024
18.11.2024

Next date of hearing: I.A. 4521/2024.

O. XXXIX R. 1 & 2 CPCNext date

Source

Pin-cited · 1 of 312

Deposition · before Local Commr.

PW-1 XXN — 14.03.2024 214:6–19

4XXN by Ld. Counsel for Defendant.

5Q. You visited bay 3? Ans. Yes.

6Q. When did you first learn of the

7cracking at bay 3?

8Ans. Around the middle of March

92022, I think. Mid-March.

10It is wrong to suggest that I knew

11of it before that.

12Q. Who informed you?

13Ans. Vikram Nair, site engineer.

14He sent photographs.

Used in Issue No. 2Written subs. ¶ 18

Correspondence bundle 3

Email — V. Nair to A. Mehra p. 41

Sent: 03.03.2022, 08:12

Subject: Bay 3

Arjun — more cracking along the east beam at bay 3 this morning. Photos attached. It is wider than last week.

We should stop loading that bay until Saptarishi’s people have looked at it.

Vikram

Used in Issue No. 2PW-1 cross-exam

Expert report · Annex. D-31

Structural assessment, bay 3 §4.2

4.2 Measured imposed loads at bay 3 peaked at 5.31 kN/m², against the 4.5 kN/m² tolerance in the work order dated 12.01.2022 — an exceedance of 18%.

4.3 In my opinion the cracking recorded from March 2022 is consistent with sustained overloading.

Used in Issue No. 3Written subs. ¶ 22

Verified against source

With Emperor

How it works

One record in. Cited work out.

Drop in the whole matter. Every line that comes back carries its source.

01Ingest

Pleadings38
Orders44
Annexures842
Evidence26
Bad scans325
Paperbooks9

02Reason

1,284documents read

03Produce

List of Dates
1. 09.03.2023Load test waivedCorr. 3, p.14
2. 02.04.2023Rigid load pathAnnex. D-31 ¶4.2
3. 14.03.2024Admits no testPW-1 XXN 214:6–19
Issues matrix
Key objections
- OBJ-1Barred by limitationPrelim.
- OBJ-2Bay 4 not pleadedPrelim.
- OBJ-3P-12 contradicts ¶9Merits
First draft

Ask the record. Get the page.

One question across 1,284 documents. Every answer pinned to page and line.

Privileged

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)

CS(COMM) 1187/2024

ARJUN MEHRA     … Plaintiff
    versus
SAPTARISHI BUILDCON PVT. LTD.
                … Defendant

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PW-1 (ARJUN MEHRA)

Recorded before the Local Commissioner

on 14.03.2024 · PAGES 201–312

Page 212

Page 213

PW-1 (ARJUN MEHRA) · XXN · 14.03.2024Page 214

1Q. You were at the site daily that week?
2A. Most days. Not on the Saturday.
3Q. And demolition of the rear portion
4 began on the Monday?
5A. Monday morning, yes.
6Q. Before the beam went in, what did youp.214 · ll.6–19
7 understand the east wall to be carrying?
8A. The first-floor joists. All of them
9 bore onto that wall.
10Q. So it was a load-bearing wall?
11A. Yes. That is why we propped it.
12Q. Who told you it was load-bearing?
13A. Mr. Vikram Nair, the Defendant's site
14 engineer, a week before work began.
15Q. Was that ever put in writing?
16A. There is an email. I forwarded it to
17 my office the same day.
18Q. Were the props only a precaution?
19A. No. Without them, that wall comes down.
20 (Objected to by Ld. Counsel for the
21 Plaintiff; objection to be decided at
22 the stage of final arguments.)
23Q. I show you the email you referred to.
24A. Yes. This is the same email.
25 (Email marked as Mark D-1.)

Report of the Structural Engineer · March 2024Page 14 of 38

ANNEXURED-31Defendant

4 Structural assessment

4.1 I have reviewed drawings S-101 to S-114,

the contractor's site diary and the

site photographs on the record.

4.2 Load pathconflicts with PW-1 214:6–19

On the documents reviewed, and on my

inspection on 21.02.2024, the east

party wall was treated as non-load-bearing

throughout the works. The first-floor

joists were carried by the new steel at

gridline C. The temporary propping

installed on 03.10.2023 was precautionary

and not required for stability.

4.3 Settlement

Level surveys on the record show movement

within the specified tolerance.

Ask Emperor

Where does PW-1 contradict the March expert report?

One direct conflict: the east wall’s load path.

PW-1 testifies the east wall was load-bearing and the props were structurally required . The Defendant’s March report treats the same wall as non-load-bearing, and the propping as precautionary .

Reads everything in the paperbook

Plaints Written statements Orders Annexures Affidavits Paperbooks Scanned photocopies

Capabilities

Everything the matter needs.

Six jobs, one record, every answer cited to its source.

PlaintPlaint ¶14

14.That the Plaintiff was never furnished the load calculations before the site meeting of 02.03.2023. (Annexure P-7)

Contradiction

Annexure · EmailAnnex. P-7

Revised load calculations sent to Sh. Mehra on 14.02.2023 for his approval.

Finds contradictions

Pleadings checked against annexures.

Paperbook scans1,284 documents

Read · indexed18,402 pages

Phone photo
Photocopy
Faded scan

Unread · illegible9 pages

P-19, p. 4
D-8, p. 3
P-33, p. 7

Reads bad scans

Illegible pages listed, never guessed.

List of Dates Mehra v. Saptarishi

14.02.2023
Load calcs sent to Mehra
Annex. P-7
20.02.2023
Mehra confirms receipt
Bundle 3, p. 14
02.03.2023
Site meeting
PW-1 Aff. ¶9
19.03.2023
Beam failure reported
Annex. P-12

Builds List of Dates

Every dated event, pin-cited to source.

Synopsis · Draft 2 Drafting 3 of 3 cited

On 14.02.2023 the revised load calculations were sent to the Plaintiff.¹ In cross-examination he deposed that he never saw them before the site meeting.² His own email of 20.02.2023 acknowledges receipt.³

Sources

1Annex. D-31 ¶4.2Structural engineer’s report
2PW-1 XXN 214:6–19Cross-examination of PW-1
3Correspondence bundle 3Email, 20.02.2023 · p. 14

Drafts with citations

Every sentence carries its pin-cite.

Leather-bound volumes of legal commentary, gold-tooled spines, on a library shelf

224,361 references

Nine categories, formatted per forum.

Supreme Court

NCLT

High Courts

NCLAT

Consumer Commissions

Tribunals

40+ courts and tribunals

Supreme Court, all 25 High Courts, NCLT, NCLAT and tribunals.

Security

Nothing leaves Indian soil.

Stored on hardware we own in New Delhi. Never used to train a model.

Where your documents sit

SOC 2 Type II
GDPR compliant
Zero training
Zero retention
Encrypted vaults
Hosted in India

What we hear most

“I used a free ChatAI for an Indian matter. It was useless.”

It answered without your file. Emperor answers from yours — with the page.

Pricing

Three plans. Bring the whole record.

No lock-in. Pay monthly, or yearly: twelve months for the price of ten.

PROMO

Junior Associate

For an advocate running a full practice.

₹4,999/mo

Choose Junior Associate

Introductory offer · limited time

1 month + 1 month FREE

Pay ₹4,999, get two months. Join while the offer runs and it stays on your plan until you cancel.

Scanned pages: 25,000/mo
Chat queries: 3,000/mo
Storage: 50 GB

FOR SENIOR LAWYERS

Senior Associate

For high-volume litigation, corporate and insolvency practices.

₹9,999/mo

Choose Senior Associate

Scanned pages: 60,000/mo
Chat queries: 6,000/mo
Storage: 200 GB

CONCIERGE PLAN

Partner

Unlimited usage, with a dedicated account manager.

₹24,999/mo

Book a call with us

Scanned pages: Unlimited
Chat queries: Unlimited
Storage: Unlimited

What each plan includes
Feature	Junior Associate₹4,999/mo	Senior Associate₹9,999/mo	Partner₹24,999/mo
Monthly usage
Scanned pages	25,000	60,000	Unlimited
Chat queries	3,000	6,000	Unlimited
Deep-thinking queriesincluded in chat queries	300	600	Unlimited
Storage	50 GB	200 GB	Unlimited
Typed documents & matters	Unlimited	Unlimited	Unlimited
The platform
AI chat on your own files, every answer cited to the page	Included	Included	Included
Case tracking across 40+ courts, with hearing-listing alerts	Included	Included	Included
Drafting in 165 document types	Included	Included	Included
Filing-ready export: indexed, paginated, with annexures	Included	Included	Included
Hearing calendar and 224,361-item legal reference library	Included	Included	Included
Google Drive & OneDrive sync	Coming soon	Coming soon	Coming soon
Support & service
Email support	Included	Included	Included
Priority support, answered by the next working day	Not included	Included	Included
Dedicated account manager on a direct line	Not included	Not included	Included
Guided onboarding: we load and check your matters with you	Not included	Not included	Included
Early access to every new tool	Not included	Not included	Included
Quarterly product call to shape our roadmap	Not included	Not included	Included

FAQ

The questions we are actually asked.

Where do my client's documents actually sit?

On hardware we own, in our own office in New Delhi.

Do you train on our documents?

Never. Zero training, and zero data retention.

Half my record is a photocopy of a photocopy. Will it read that?

Yes, page by page. A truly illegible page is marked unread, never guessed.

Which jurisdictions are supported?

Indian jurisdiction only — 40+ courts and tribunals.

Will it replace my juniors and my clerk?

No. It does the second read of the whole file nobody has time for.

Is there a lock-in?

No annual contract, no minimum term. Cancel any time.

If the output is wrong, who is answerable?

You are. Every output is a draft for counsel to verify against the source.

Bring one paperbook.

Yours, not ours. We run it in front of you; you check the pages.

Book a demo Where documents sit