Claw Litigation Search: Court Coverage, Data Captured, Turnaround and Pricing
What a Claw litigation search actually covers, what it captures from each case, how long it takes, and what it costs. Based on a dated test across three real entity types, reported honestly, including what a court search cannot find.
Litigation Search · Coverage & Pricing
Almost every litigation search tool claims wide coverage. Very few say exactly which courts they scan, what they pull from each case, how long it takes, or what it costs. This page does. It reports what a Claw litigation search covered across three real entity types on a dated test, what data it captured from each matter, the turnaround options, and the price. It also states plainly what a name-based court search cannot find, because a coverage number is only useful next to its limits.
- Court sources scanned: ~9,102 district court establishments, 25 High Courts (across ~28 websites/benches), the Supreme Court, and 13 to 15 named tribunals.
- Captured per case: case and FIR numbers, orders and order transcripts, compliances, next hearing dates, and case stage.
- Output: a consolidated, stage-based spreadsheet across all matters for the entity.
- Turnaround: minimum ~4 hours to capture; delivery in 12, 24 or 48-hour tranches (longer window, lower cost).
- Pricing: Rs 250 per search at the standard 48-hour turnaround; 24-hour and 12-hour cost more.
- Honest limit: arbitration, unfiled notices and some matters under name variants are not captured by any court search.
01What we tested
A litigation search is only as good as the entities you run it against. So the test used three different entity structures, because each behaves differently in Indian court records:
- A limited liability partnership (LLP).
- A private limited company.
- A sole proprietorship, where matters often sit under the proprietor’s personal name rather than a registered entity name.
For each, the search ran a primary scan across the court and tribunal sources listed below, followed by a secondary verification pass to confirm the matches rather than relying on a single lookup. The test was run on 28 August 2026; treat the figures below as observed on that date, not as a permanent guarantee, because court portals and their coverage change.
Coverage of sources vs finding every case
Two different things get called "coverage". One is how many court sources a search scans. The other is whether it finds every case that exists for an entity. This page reports the first honestly, and is candid about the second in the entity-matching and name-collision section.
02Court and tribunal coverage
Across the three test entities, the search scanned the following court sources. The list is named deliberately, rather than described as "all courts", so it can be checked.
| Court layer | What was scanned |
|---|---|
| District and subordinate courts | All district court establishments, around 9,102 court codes across the states and union territories |
| High Courts | Every High Court in India (25 High Courts), across roughly 28 court websites and benches |
| Supreme Court | The Supreme Court of India |
| Company and insolvency tribunals | NCLT and NCLAT |
| Debt recovery | DRT and DRAT |
| Tax tribunals | ITAT, CESTAT and the GST appellate layer |
| Consumer forums | NCDRC, the State Commissions (SCDRC) and District Commissions (DCDRC) |
| Service and other tribunals | CAT, CGIT, APTEL and labour courts |
In total the test covered 13 to 15 tribunals alongside the district courts, High Courts and the Supreme Court. Across those scanned sources the search returned results from every source in the list, which is what "full coverage" means here: breadth of court sources, not a claim to have found every case ever filed. That distinction matters, and the limits section explains why.
A finite, named list of courts you can verify is worth more than an infinite claim you cannot.
03What is captured from each case
Coverage is only half the value. The other half is what the search pulls back from each matter it finds. For the test entities, each case returned:
- Case and FIR numbers, so a matter can be traced back to its primary court record.
- Orders and order transcripts, not just the case listing.
- Compliances arising from those orders (for example, a direction to file within a set period).
- Next hearing dates and the current stage of each matter.
The output was consolidated into a stage-based spreadsheet, so every matter for the entity sits in one view with its court, status, stage, next date and linked documents, rather than as scattered lookups. For a due-diligence or lending file, that consolidated, stage-tagged output is usually the difference between raw data and a usable litigation picture.
04Turnaround and pricing
A full multi-court scan with secondary verification takes work, so turnaround and price are tied to priority. The minimum time to capture the data across all sources is around four hours. Beyond that, the search is offered in three turnaround tranches, priced on a simple rule: the more time you allow, the lower the cost, because a longer window means lower processing priority.
| Turnaround | Priority | Price per search |
|---|---|---|
| 48 hours | Standard | Rs 250 (standard rate) |
| 24 hours | Higher | Higher than the 48-hour rate |
| 12 hours | Highest | Highest of the three |
The standard 48-hour search is priced at Rs 250 per search (checked 28 August 2026). The 24-hour and 12-hour options cost more, in return for faster delivery. Publishing a per-search price with its turnaround and date is deliberate: for programmatic or portfolio screening, a clear per-search cost is what lets a lender or diligence team model the total spend, rather than working from a "contact us" quote. For high-volume or API-based screening, see litigation search API for banks and NBFCs.
05What a litigation search cannot find
An honest coverage page has to say what is out of reach, because a search that implies completeness is misleading. No name-based court search, from any provider, can promise to find every matter for an entity. Two reasons matter most.
Some disputes are not in any court database
Arbitration proceedings, pre-litigation legal notices, and matters not yet filed do not appear in court records at all. A court search will not show them. For deal work, these are covered by the counterparty’s own disclosures and the contract, not by a database. See why arbitration data is not public in India.
Name matching produces both misses and false positives
Indian court records have no single unique identifier for an entity, so searches run on name strings. Former names, spelling and transliteration variants, similarly named parties, and matters filed against a director rather than the company all affect what a search returns. This is why the test used a secondary verification pass, and why a result should be read as a starting point to verify, not a final answer. The difference between a true "nothing found" and an inconclusive search is explained in no cases found vs search inconclusive.
06How to read these results
These figures are provider-observed: they are what a Claw litigation search returned on a dated internal test, not an independent third-party benchmark. That is worth stating plainly, because the strongest evidence for any litigation tool is a reproducible test against a set of entities whose litigation is already known, measuring how many real cases are found and how many false positives appear. Where a claim here can be checked against the underlying court record, the case and FIR numbers make that possible. Treat coverage and turnaround as observed specifications, and verify any individual finding against the primary court source before acting on it.
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. For a litigation check specifically, that means searching a company or person across the district courts, all High Courts, the Supreme Court and the tribunals listed above, capturing orders, compliances and hearing dates, and delivering the result as a consolidated, stage-based file, with a clear per-search price and turnaround.
The honest framing is the selling point. A litigation search is most useful to a diligence, lending or hiring team when it states its coverage in named courts, publishes its price, and is candid about the arbitration and name-matching gaps that every court search shares. For how this fits a full check, see how to run a litigation background check on an Indian company.
08Frequently asked questions
Which courts does a Claw litigation search cover?
On the 28 August 2026 test, it scanned around 9,102 district court establishments, all 25 High Courts across roughly 28 court websites and benches, the Supreme Court, and 13 to 15 tribunals including NCLT, NCLAT, DRT, DRAT, ITAT, CESTAT, the GST appellate layer, NCDRC, SCDRC, DCDRC, CAT, CGIT, APTEL and labour courts.
How much does a litigation search cost?
The standard 48-hour turnaround is Rs 250 per search (checked 28 August 2026). Faster 24-hour and 12-hour options cost more, because a shorter window means higher processing priority.
How long does it take?
The minimum time to capture the data across all sources is around four hours. Delivery is offered in 12, 24 or 48-hour tranches depending on how quickly you need it.
What does the search return for each case?
Case and FIR numbers, orders and order transcripts, compliances arising from those orders, the next hearing date, and the current stage, consolidated into a stage-based spreadsheet.
Does a litigation search find every case against a company?
No court search can promise that. Arbitration, unfiled notices and matters under former or variant names may not appear. A secondary verification pass reduces errors, but any finding should be verified against the primary court record before you act on it.
Is this an independent benchmark?
No. These figures are provider-observed on a dated internal test. An independent benchmark would test multiple providers against a set of entities with known litigation and report recall and false-positive rates. This page reports coverage, turnaround and price honestly, and states its limits.