M/s Levitate Mobile Technologies Pvt. Ltd. [Appellant(s)] Vs. M/s. Standard Chartered Bank [Respondent(s)]
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8786 OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 13250 of 2026)
(DB, Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ., Delivered by Sanjay Karol, J.)
Overview
In this case, the Supreme Court examined whether a party in a commercial matter can bring additional documents on record after its principal witness has already completed evidence.
The appeal arose from an order of the Delhi High Court refusing to permit M/s Levitate Mobile Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (LMT) to produce further documents at a later stage of the trial.
The Court was required to interpret the framework introduced by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, particularly the strict rules for the disclosure of documents in commercial litigation. It was argued by LMT that the additional documents were necessary after the issues raised during cross-examination, whereas the Standard Chartered Bank contended that the documents had always been in the possession of LMT and should have been produced earlier.
The principal issue to be dealt with by the Supreme Court was whether the appellant had shown a reasonable cause for the delay in producing the documents and whether such permission could be granted without ignoring the objective of speedy disposal under the Commercial Courts Act.
Facts of the Case
The dispute arose from an IT Professional Services Agreement which was executed between Levitate Mobile Technologies, the appellant herein and, the respondent, Standard Chartered Bank in February 2013, for the development of a mobile application. After the launch of the application, LMT was directed by the bank to discontinue the project. While claiming that this caused huge financial losses under the revenue sharing arrangement in the agreement, LMT issued a legal notice seeking ₹4.46 crores along with interest.
When the claim was denied, LMT filed a civil suit before the Delhi High Court in 2015. After the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act, the matter was transferred as a commercial suit in 2018. On the same date, LMT was allowed by the Court to place additional documents on record.
For several years the proceedings continued, and the evidence of LMT’s principal witness concluded in May 2023. Following the same, another application for permission to produce further documents was filed by LMT, including emails, server records, and vendor agreements, while requesting that its witness should be recalled.
According to LMT, these documents were important to address the issues raised during cross-examination and the delay in producing them resulted from the large volume of records which were involved.
The application was rejected by the Single Judge, while observing that the documents had always been available with LMT and no reasonable explanation had been offered for producing them at a later stage. Aggrieved by the same, LMT approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
- Whether the appellant gave a reasonable cause for producing additional documents after the evidence was completed.
- Whether the timelines which are prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act are mandatory.
- Whether the procedural requirements of the Commercial Courts Act apply to the suits, which are transferred from ordinary civil jurisdiction.
- Whether additional evidence can be introduced in a piecemeal manner during an advanced stage of trial.
Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, and the order of the Delhi High Court was upheld, refusing to accept the additional documents.
The Court observed that the Commercial Courts Act was enacted to ensure speedy resolution of commercial disputes and its procedural framework cannot be undermined by allowing the parties to introduce evidence in a piecemeal manner.
Even though the applicable standard is one of “reasonable cause,” the Court found that the appellant failed to satisfy even that requirement, as the documents were always in its possession and an opportunity to produce, the documents had already been granted earlier.
The Court further held that issues arising during cross-examination cannot be relied upon to only fill evidentiary gaps. Finding no reason to interfere, the appeal was dismissed and the High Court was directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously.
