The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by M/s. Levitate Mobile Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (LMT) against Standard Chartered Bank (SCB), refusing to permit the company to place additional documents on record at a late stage of a long-pending commercial suit. The Court held that commercial litigation demands strict adherence to procedural timelines and cannot be allowed to continue through a piecemeal approach.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from an IT Professional Services Agreement dated February 19, 2013, under which Levitate Mobile Technologies agreed to develop and manage a mobile application for Standard Chartered Bank. After the application was launched on Android and iOS platforms, the bank directed the company to remove it.
Claiming that this caused substantial financial loss under a revenue-sharing arrangement, LMT issued a legal notice in April 2015 seeking ₹4.46 crore along with 18% annual interest. When the demand was denied, the company filed a civil suit before the Delhi High Court. The suit was later transferred and renumbered as a commercial suit under the Commercial Courts Act after additional documents were permitted to be placed on record in 2018.
Years later, after the examination of its first witness had concluded, LMT sought permission to introduce another set of documents, including emails exchanged with the bank, agreements with other vendors, and backend server data. The Delhi High Court rejected that application in February 2025, leading to the present appeal.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court's Observations
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh examined whether the High Court had correctly refused permission for the late filing of documents.
The Court discussed the scheme of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, observing that the legislation was enacted to ensure the speedy resolution of commercial disputes through strict timelines and efficient case management.
The Bench noted,
"What cannot be countenanced is a stop and go or a piecemeal approach."
It added that a plaintiff is expected to produce all relevant documents while leading evidence and anticipate the issues likely to arise during cross-examination, rather than attempting to fill gaps later.
Although the appellant argued that the applicable standard was "reasonable cause" rather than "sufficient cause," the Supreme Court held that the distinction made no difference in the present case. Even applying the lower threshold, the company had failed to provide a convincing explanation for producing documents that had always been in its possession.
The Bench further remarked,
"Evidence, however voluminous, cannot water down the statutory intent and rigours of the statute."
It stressed that allowing repeated applications for additional documents would defeat the very objective of the Commercial Courts Act, which is to ensure expeditious disposal of high-value business disputes.
Highlighting the prolonged nature of the litigation, the Court observed that the suit had been pending since 2015 and remarked that
"even a snail may question the speed at which this trial is proceeding."
The judges found that the reasons cited in the second application were substantially similar to those relied upon in the first application allowed in 2018, making the fresh request unjustified.
Supreme Court's Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court's order refusing to accept the additional documents.
The Bench concluded that no reasonable justification had been shown for the delayed production of evidence and held that no interference with the High Court's decision was warranted.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court directed that the underlying commercial suit be decided as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs was passed.
Case Details:
Case Title: M/s. Levitate Mobile Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Standard Chartered Bank & Anr.
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 13250 of 2026
Judge: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Decision Date: July 9, 2026
