The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the strict procedural framework governing commercial disputes by refusing to introduce additional documents at an advanced stage of trial. 

The bench of  Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that permitting parties to produce evidence in a piecemeal manner would defeat the very objective of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which seeks the speedy and efficient resolution of commercial litigation.

The dispute arose from an IT Professional Services Agreement executed on 19 February 2013 between Levitate Mobile Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) for developing and managing a mobile banking application.

Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026

According to LMT, it invested substantial resources in developing and launching the application on Android and iOS platforms. However, shortly after its launch, the bank allegedly instructed the company to remove the application. Claiming that the agreement contained a revenue-sharing arrangement, LMT alleged significant financial losses and issued a legal notice in April 2015 seeking ₹4.46 crore along with interest at 18% per annum.

After the bank denied the claim, LMT instituted a civil suit before the Delhi High Court in 2015. Following the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act, the matter was converted into a commercial suit in January 2018.

During the trial, LMT’s witness (PW-1) completed his examination in May 2023.

Thereafter, LMT filed another application seeking permission to: Place additional documents on record; Recall PW-1 for further examination.

The documents sought to be introduced included: Email correspondence exchanged between the parties; Agreements executed with other vendors; Backend server data.

LMT argued that these documents became necessary because certain issues surfaced during the cross-examination of its witness. It further contended that the documents merely substantiated its existing pleadings rather than introducing an entirely new case.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the application in February 2025, holding that LMT failed to explain the prolonged delay in producing the documents; The documents had always remained in its possession; The application appeared to be an attempt to fill gaps exposed during evidence; Allowing such a request would undermine the objective of expeditious disposal under the Commercial Courts Act.

The company challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.

The bench undertook an extensive examination of the Commercial Courts Act and emphasized that Parliament deliberately introduced stringent procedural timelines to accelerate commercial litigation.

The Court highlighted that the Act contains strict timelines for filing written statements; disclosure of documents; inspection of records; disposal of appeals; and pronouncement of judgments.

According to the Court, these provisions demonstrate the legislative intent to improve the ease of doing business by ensuring speedy adjudication of commercial disputes.

The Supreme Court discussed Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, which allows a plaintiff to file additional documents only after obtaining leave of the court and establishing a “reasonable cause” for the delay.

LMT argued that the volume of emails was enormous; tracking multiple email chains and attachments was difficult; the litigation involved voluminous records accumulated over several years; fresh issues emerged only during cross-examination.

However, the Court held that these explanations failed to satisfy even the lower threshold of “reasonable cause.” The Bench observed that the plaintiff is expected to anticipate the defence and place all relevant documents before the court at the earliest stage rather than waiting until weaknesses become apparent during trial.

Rejecting the appeal, the Court observed that permitting repeated applications for additional evidence would encourage a “stop-and-go” approach to commercial litigation.

The Bench noted that LMT had already been permitted once to place additional documents on record; the documents sought in the second application were always within its possession; the reasons advanced in the second application substantially mirrored those relied upon in the first application.

The Court remarked that voluminous records cannot dilute the rigour of statutory timelines under the Commercial Courts Act. It further observed that accepting such applications would undermine the legislative objective of ensuring swift disposal of high-value commercial disputes.

The appellant also argued that the stricter procedural requirements of the Commercial Courts Act should not be applied to a suit originally instituted before the Act became applicable.

Rejecting this contention, the Supreme Court held that Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act expressly mandates the transfer of pending commercial disputes to Commercial Courts and requires such transferred cases to be governed by the procedural framework of the Act.

The Court therefore found no merit in the argument that pending suits should continue under the earlier procedural regime.

Expressing concern over the prolonged pendency of the litigation, the Bench observed that although the suit was instituted in 2015, the plaintiff’s evidence was still continuing in 2026.

In a notable observation, the Court remarked that “even a snail may question the speed at which this trial is proceeding,” emphasizing that such delays run contrary to the very purpose for which the Commercial Courts Act was enacted.

Finding no justification to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s order, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the rejection of LMT’s application to file additional documents.

While refusing relief, the Court directed that the underlying commercial suit be decided as expeditiously as possible, reiterating the importance of speedy adjudication under the Commercial Courts Act.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Persistent Loan Defaulters Can’t Challenge Recovery After Repeated Defaults: Supreme Court