Court Day
Every hearing listed for the day, grouped by court, with what each one needs. Prints to A4 and A5.
Built for Indian litigation practice
Your practice, one board, every morning.
CaseNestor keeps a litigation practice in one place — the day's hearings, the peshi diary, limitation dates, documents, clients and billing. It is built around the way an Indian advocate actually works: by court, by date, by matter.
English + हिन्दी · Offline-aware court-day workflows · Every value carries its source
Bilingual throughout. Every screen reads in English and Hindi, including printed cause lists and diaries.
Wednesday, 3 SeptemberDemo preview3 hearings · 2 courts · 1 limitation item to review
High Court — Court 4
Item 12Sample Traders v. Sample IndustriesArguments2 preparation tasks openCourt source
Item 27In re: Sample EstateMention1 preparation task openEntered by firm
District Court — Court 2
Item 4Sample Builders v. Sample Municipal CouncilEvidenceCourt source
Appeal period — Sample Traders
Computed from an entered order date. Not yet reviewed.
ComputedAwaiting review
Next date changed
14 Sep → 28 Sep, observed on the court's own page.
Court source
Open Court Day
Illustrative records. Not a real firm, not a real case, not from any court.
26 working screens
Every one connected to the API, not a mock
English and Hindi
Court vocabulary, not transliteration
Isolation in the database
Row-level security, forced for the owner role too
Restore-tested backups
A backup is not a backup until it has been restored
The work that goes missing between hearings
A date changes and nobody is told. A limitation runs while the file sits in a cupboard. A client rings to ask what happened and the answer is in somebody's notebook. CaseNestor holds all of it, and shows the whole day on one screen before you leave for court.
Peshi diary
The diary an advocate carries, kept as data. Capture outcomes at court and reconcile later — it works without a signal.
Limitation and deadlines
Periods, stays, certified-copy exclusions and working-day arithmetic. Where a court's calendar is not published, it refuses to compute rather than guess.
Document vault
Every original kept immutable, with a checksum, a custody trail and an ethical wall between matters.
Billing and trust ledger
Time, expenses, invoices and a client-money ledger kept separate from the firm's own account.
Clients and their own view
A client sees their matters and nothing else — a separate login with its own permissions, not a shared screen.
Litigation work falls through the gaps between hearings.
Not through anybody's carelessness — through the handful of moments where a fact lives in one place and the decision is made in another.
Today, without it
The next date is in a notebook, and in a clerk's memory.
With CaseNestor
The matter, the date and the person responsible appear on one board each morning.
Today, without it
A limitation period is worked out on the day somebody remembers to ask.
With CaseNestor
The date is computed, its assumptions are written down, and it says whether a person has reviewed it.
Today, without it
What happened in court is reconstructed in the evening.
With CaseNestor
The outcome is captured at court, on a weak signal, and reconciled when the connection returns.
Today, without it
A client calls, and somebody opens four files to answer.
With CaseNestor
Authorised matter status and documents are already visible in a separate client view.
What it does, by the part of the practice it serves
The morning, in one board
- Today, Court Day, peshi diary and the cause list, by court and by date.
- Preparation shows as open work, not as a tick somebody remembered.
The register, and how a matter got there
- Case register, imports, and searches that produce candidates for the firm to select.
- Limitation dates carry their basis and their review state.
What changed, and where it came from
- Scheduled checks record what was read, when, and from which page.
- A check that failed is a failure on the screen, never an empty result.
Originals that cannot be edited
- The court's own file is stored unchanged, with a checksum and a custody trail.
- Drafting and filing sit beside the original, never on top of it.
The client's view, and the firm's ledger
- A client desk and a separate portal that shows only what the firm has released.
- Time, expenses and invoices, with client money kept apart from firm revenue.
Who did what, and who may
- Roles and permissions, an audit trail, retention rules and export.
- Consequential actions are recorded whether or not anybody is watching.
Find your cases once. Keep them current without asking.
The court integration is built around one loop, and every step of it is visible while it runs.
Search by your name
Enter your name as it appears on the cause list. The official eCourts portal is searched for the matters you appear in.
Choose what is yours
Results arrive as candidates, not as facts. You pick the ones that belong to your firm; nothing is imported behind your back.
It stays current
Chosen matters are checked on a schedule. A changed date, a new order or a disposal is recorded with what changed and when.
You are told, once
Changes become reminders and digests instead of alerts nobody reads. A failed check is never shown as 'nothing new'.
How a court connection actually behaves
- A search returns candidates. Nothing enters the firm's records until somebody selects it.
- A check that could not complete says so. It is never reported as “nothing new”.
- The portal's challenge is answered by a person. No automated solving is enabled.
- Each connector is switched on individually by an authorised operator, with the reason recorded.
What is live today, and what is not
Most products do not print this. It is here because the alternative is letting a firm find out after they have committed, and because the same rule inside the product forbids showing an unverified value as confirmed.
Live and working
- Sign-in, 26 screens, matters, hearings, Court Day, peshi diary, limitation, documents, billing, governance and the client view.
- Firm isolation enforced by the database, and backups that have been restored and checked.
Built, waiting on configuration
- Email, SMS and WhatsApp delivery. The adapters are built; no credentials are configured, so nothing is reported as sent.
- Object storage runs on the server's own filesystem. An S3-compatible store is supported and not configured.
Operator-controlled
- High Court case-status retrieval by advocate name is switched on for this deployment. The portal challenge is answered by a person.
- The judgment and district connectors remain switched off. No court has been contacted by this deployment yet.
Status reviewed on 3 September 2026
What the product refuses to do
It never invents a court record
A value that came from a court is labelled as such. A value we derived is labelled separately, and an AI-derived one is never described as verified.
A failed check is not 'no results'
If a search could not be made, it says so. Showing an empty list would tell an advocate something false about their own practice, and they would act on it.
One firm cannot see another
Isolation is enforced in the database with row-level security, forced even for the owner role — not by a filter in application code that somebody can forget.
Originals are never edited
A downloaded order is stored immutably with its checksum. Corrections are recorded alongside the original, never over it.
The same system, from four seats
Solo advocate
One board in the morning, the diary at court, and the file afterwards.
Chamber or team
Who is appearing where, what preparation is open, and who owns it.
Firm administrator
Roles, permissions, retention, audit and export in one place.
Authorised client
A separate view showing only what the firm has chosen to release.
Built for the corridor outside the court room
- English and Hindi are the same product, not two websites. Court vocabulary is used as practitioners use it.
- Court Day and the peshi diary print to A4 and A5.
- Peshi capture keeps working on a weak signal. The queue is visible, and reconciliation happens when the connection returns.
Not everything works offline, and the product says which parts do not.
Questions worth asking before you trust it
Is CaseNestor a court or a government website?
No. It is a private tool for a practice, with no affiliation to any court or government body. It reads public court pages when a firm asks it to.
Does a search add every result to my firm?
No. A search produces candidates. A person from the firm selects which ones are yours, and only those enter the records.
What happens when a court lookup fails?
The failure is shown as a failure, with what was attempted and when. Existing matter data is left unchanged. It is never rendered as “no results”.
Can I work in Hindi?
Yes, throughout. The Hindi is written in court vocabulary rather than transliterated English, and the test suite fails a Hindi string identical to its English one.
Does it replace professional review of a limitation date?
No, and it does not present itself as doing so. A computed date carries its assumptions and its review state, and an unreviewed date says it is unreviewed.
Can a client see everything?
No. The client portal shows only what the firm has released for that client, and firm-to-firm isolation is enforced in the database rather than in the screen.
How are original court documents handled?
The original is stored unchanged, with a checksum and a custody record. Corrections and notes sit beside it and never overwrite it.
What if the signal is poor at court?
Hearing outcomes can be captured offline and reconciled later. The queue is visible so nothing is silently lost, and the parts that need a connection say so.
See it with your own practice
Sign in, add a matter, and look at the Court Day board. Nothing on any screen is illustrative — an empty board means an empty day, not a placeholder.
Sign in to your firm