We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
Is there any AI research tool that gives links to sources?
It's only relies on legit Indian sources like RBI, SEBI, law firm articles, lexology Mondaq etc. so yeah worth checking out cause it's free also
Does an application by a financial creditor under Section 7(5)(a) of IBC have to be mandatorily admitted?
No, an application by a financial creditor under Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC does not have to be mandatorily admitted. The Supreme Court has clarified that Section 7(5)(a) gives the Adjudicating Authority the discretion not to admit even when the evidence of default is satisfied 1. The use of the word “may” in Section 7(5)(a) is intended to confer discretionary power on the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to admit the application of a financial creditor seeking initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the corporate debtor 2. The Adjudicating Authority must apply its mind to a spectrum of relevant factors, including the financial health and viability of the corporate debtor, and the feasibility of CIRP, as the IBC aims to revive a company/debtor and not spell its death knell 1. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that the Adjudicating Authority’s discretion not to admit the application of the financial creditor is based on relevant facts and circumstances, including the overall financial health and viability of the corporate debtor, indicating that the existence of a debt and default merely give a financial creditor the right to apply for initiating CIRP, but the Adjudicating Authority has the discretion not to admit the application 2. Therefore, the decision to admit an application under Section 7(5)(a) is not mandatory and is at the discretion of the Adjudicating Authority 3.
I wish this was like reddit and I could give you a fake internet award but just take my thanks ig
Try Perplexity AI instead, it does all of the above, more accurately. I have been using Perpelxity for quite some time now. Shows sources and all and it can maintain context for follow up questions for a long time.
Is rummy a game of skill or chance as per the supreme court?
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that rummy is a game of skill, not a game of chance. The Supreme Court clarified that games in which success relies more on skill than on chance will not be classified as gambling, but will be recognized as games of skill. The Court emphasized that rummy requires a certain amount of skill, particularly in memorizing the sequence of falling cards and strategically holding or discarding cards to build a strong hand. Moreover, in a case before the Madras High Court, it was affirmed that rummy, whether played online or offline, is a game of skill.
Therefore, as per the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court, rummy is considered a game of skill rather than a game of chance.
2) reminds me of this recent quote by a former googler gaurav aggarwal, ""I advise a few tech companies and I realise how shallow the AI capabilities are in India," he says. "Unfortunately, most AI companies in India are just wrappers, they are just following OpenAI APIs and building some cute little applications on top of it. They are not deep AI companies at all. In fact, there are very few people in India who know how to train models in India." jurisphere is another such wrapper but not even done well.
On the other hand, bing ai is fairly more reliable, but is extremely lazy and gives very short and clipped answers. Does not follow prompts as well as other GPTs.
Do not use ChatGPT, Claude or any of the others - the amount of hallucinations in these is insane plus they both do not have updated databases. The ones I suggested actively use the internet.
The AI chatbot provided by casemine is limited and useless. Do not rely on anything other than the two I suggested
I would suggest on a weekend, you just play around and figure out your own automated models and templates. It will go a long way in hasten your research abilities.
We are fifth years in NLUJ, developing our own model where it will use SCC, manu, casemine etc., to give you the output, something similar to Thomson Router's Co-Counsel (as it is not suited for India yet) and give you the notes in the kind of research we do at firms as associates via the open source 70B model.
DM NLUJ Tech Club, if you wanna know more
anyway, my recommendation is use jhana.ai. i've tried Casemine, jurisphere, etc and have claude pro account - but these all have hallucinations when I ask questions with precedent needed