Explainer · API · Director Risk

Board Resolution and Director Litigation Check API

Updated for 2026 · Claw Editorial

A board resolution and director litigation check API lets a company screen a director for court cases automatically, at the moment a board decision calls for it, rather than emailing a name to a research team and waiting. When a board resolves to appoint a director, approve a related-party transaction, or admit a new entity into a group, that resolution is the natural trigger to confirm the people involved are not carrying undisclosed litigation, criminal or disqualification risk. An API does that programmatically: your onboarding or compliance system sends the director's name and identifiers, and gets back a structured, scored result it can store, flag or act on. This page explains why a board resolution is the trigger, what a director litigation check API takes and returns, the cross-company director angle, and how to build it in safely. Last verified October 2026.

01Why a board resolution triggers the check

Board resolutions are where companies formally take on director-related risk. Three resolutions in particular call for a litigation check:

• Appointing or co-opting a director. The company should confirm the person is not disqualified and does not carry serious criminal or fraud exposure before the appointment is recorded.
• Approving a related-party transaction. The counterparties and their directors are worth screening before the board commits.
• Admitting or acquiring an entity. The directors of the incoming entity become part of the group's risk.

Tying the check to the resolution means the diligence happens every time, on the record, instead of depending on someone remembering to ask.

02What a director check API does

An API turns a manual research request into a system call. Your platform sends a director's details, and the service runs the litigation and criminal-risk search across courts and tribunals and returns the result as structured data your system can parse, not a PDF someone has to read.

That lets you do three things no manual process can: run the check automatically at the resolution stage, store a time-stamped result for the compliance record, and re-run it on a schedule so a director who becomes a risk after appointment is flagged.

03What you send and get back

A director litigation check API typically works like this:

Returning a match confidence on every finding is essential, because director names recur and a raw hit is not proof of identity.

04The cross-company director problem

The hard part of director screening is that a director's risk often sits in another company. A person may be clean in the entity you are looking at but a defendant, a disqualified director, or an insolvency respondent in a company elsewhere. A proper check follows the director across their directorships, not just the one in front of you.

For the manual method behind this, see how to find all cases against a director across companies. The API simply automates that cross-company search and returns it as data.

05Where it fits in your systems

Because it is an API, the check can live wherever a board decision or an onboarding happens:

• In a company secretarial or governance system, firing at the resolution stage.
• In a vendor or counterparty onboarding flow, screening the directors behind an entity.
• In a periodic compliance job, re-checking the board and key counterparties on a schedule.

For the wider set of programmatic court-data options, see the best court data APIs in India and court record check APIs.

06Using the result lawfully and honestly

An automated check must be used as carefully as a manual one:

• "Nothing on record" is not a clean chit. It means nothing was found in the registries searched, on the date searched, under the names searched.
• A hit is not a verdict. A pending case is an allegation, and a match on a common name needs a confidence check before it drives a decision.
• Handle personal data lawfully. Director data is personal data; store it securely and use it only for the governance or onboarding purpose.

07Where Claw fits

Claw is an all-in-one legaltech platform for Indian advocates, law firms, and corporate legal teams, combining AI-based case search, an AI legal assistant (Legal GPT), case management, and compliance automation across all Indian courts and tribunals.

ClawScore (at clawscore.clawlaw.in) is Claw's litigation and criminal-risk intelligence service, and it is available programmatically so a director check can run from your own systems. Send a director's name and identifiers and the associated companies, and the search runs across 9,102 courts, benches and forums and returns structured, scored data: the matters found, a Related parties view that follows the director across entities, a ClawScore risk band (Clean, Low, Moderate or High), a match confidence on each finding, and the coverage of what was searched. Results return in under 5 seconds, the underlying judgment archive spans 30 crore+ judgments with Supreme Court decisions from 1950 and High Court decisions from 1990, and Claw does not use your searched names or documents to train its AI models. ClawScore is a risk input, not a verdict and not a credit score, so a finding must be verified and used lawfully and fairly. You can create a FREE Claw account to try a director search before wiring in the API.

To see the method behind the API, run a manual case search across Indian courts by party name across every forum at once.

08Sources and further reading

• Ministry of Corporate Affairs (DIN and director master data): mca.gov.in
• eCourts (case status and orders): ecourts.gov.in
• National Judicial Data Grid: njdg.ecourts.gov.in
• Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India: ibbi.gov.in
• Claw: clawlaw.in

This page is general information for an Indian B2B audience, not legal advice. Director data is personal data; confirm your screening and data handling with counsel.

09Frequently asked questions