Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 747
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
M/S. Levitate Mobile Technologies Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
M/S. Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8786 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 13250 of 2026)
Decided On : 09-07-2026
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gopal Shankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Preety Makkar, AOR Mr. Abhimanyu Garg, Adv. Ms. Aditi Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv. Mr. Madhav Gupta, Adv. Mr. Tushar Srivastava, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ateev Mathur, Adv. Mr. Manish Paliwal, AOR Mr. Aasheesh Gupta, Adv. Ms. Jagriti Ahuja, Adv. Mr. Anmol Mehta, Adv. Ms. Trupti Das, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Production of additional documents – Plaintiff is obliged to file document in its possession along with plaint – Stop and go or a piecemeal approach cannot be countenanced.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XI Rule 1 – Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 12A – Production of additional documents – Commercial suit – Plaintiff is obliged to file document in its possession along with plaint though it can seek leave to file and rely on file additional documents – Plaintiff when leading evidence, is expected to not only produce all documents but also properly anticipate questions that may be put to its witnesses by other side – What cannot be countenanced is a stop and go or a piecemeal approach – Evidence, however voluminous, cannot water down statutory intent and rigours of statute – One round of additional evidence was already allowed to be produced and placed on record – All documents that are sought to be produced by way of present application were in possession of LMT, both at the time of filing plaint and subsequent additional evidence – If present application is allowed, this Court would be condoning piecemeal approach to proceedings of a commercial suit – View ascribed by Single Judge of High Court assented. (Paras 10, 12, 13 and 15)
Facts of the case:
IT Professional Services Agreement was entered into between parties. Process therefor was undertaken allegedly in earnest, and hours of laborious effort was put in, culminating in app being launched across Android and iOS systems. Shortly, thereafter, however, SCB instructed LMT to take down the said app. This was the beginning of the dispute.
Findings of Court:
We in toto agree with the conclusion arrived at by Court in terms of the impugned order since no case for interference is made out by appellant. Appeal is dismissed with a direction, however, that suit be decided as expeditiously as possible.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - Commercial suits require strict adherence to procedural timelines; evidence cannot be filed piecemeal absent reasonable cause (!) (!) (!) . - The Commercial Courts Act applies to all pending suits transferred to commercial divisions, and its procedures must be strictly construed to prevent delays (!) (!) . - ‘Reasonable cause’ is assessed strictly, and delays due to negligence or lack of diligence are not sufficient to justify fresh applications for additional documents (!) (!) . - A party must produce all relevant documents at the initial stage; subsequent applications are disallowed unless a valid and timely reason is shown (!) (!) . - The statute mandates expeditious disposal of commercial disputes, and courts must discourage piecemeal approaches to uphold this objective (!) (!) (!) .
What is the scope of ‘reasonable cause’ for filing additional documents in commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act?
How are pending proceedings treated under the Commercial Courts Act regarding procedural timelines?
What is the rule on piecemeal evidence filing in commercial disputes?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the commercial courts act (cca) mandates strict adherence to procedural timelines to ensure the speedy resolution of commercial disputes. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. litigation history involving applications for additional evidence within ongoing commercial suit proceedings. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. parties must establish 'reasonable cause' for filing additional documents; mere volume or lack of prior anticipation does not satisfy this threshold. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. the court rejects piecemeal filing of evidence, reinforcing that statutory intent of expediency overrides claims of voluminous records in pending commercial trials. (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. dismissal of appeal for lack of interference and directive for expeditious disposal of the underlying suit. (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
1. Leave granted.
THE APPEAL
2. The appellant1[LMT] was approached by respondent2[SCB] for the purposes of developing and managing a mobile application, commonly known as an ‘app’. An IT Professional Services Agreement was entered into, to that effect on 19th February 2013. The process therefor was undertaken allegedly in earnest, and hours of laborious effort was put in, culminating in the app being launched across the Android and iOS systems. Shortly, thereafter, however, the SCB instructed LMT to take down the said app. This was the beginning of the dispute. Since the Agreement housed a revenue sharing clause, the latter alleged losses and set the legal process afoot by sending a legal notice dated 15th April 2015, asking SCB to pay Rs. 4,46,50,000 along with interest at 18% p.a. Such a claim was denied, leading to the filing of Civil Suit (OS) No.1705 of 2015 before the High Court of Delhi. Parties completed the pleadings by filing written statement(s) and replication thereto. Issues were framed on 16th November 2016. Thereafter, LMT filed an application seeking to place on record additional documents, which was allowed on 30th January 2018. On the same day, an order was passed renumbering the suit as CS(Comm.) 169 of 2018.
2.1 After some other proceedings, the evidence of one Sunil Jasuja who was examined as PW-1 was completed on 9th May 2023.
2.2 LMT sought to file another application being IA No. 24359 of 2023 to bring on record additional documents and recall PW-1 as a witness for examination. What was sought to be brought on record was (i) e-mails exchanged between LMT and SCB; (ii) the copy of the agreements entered into between the LMT and other vendors; and (iii) backend data stored in servers.
2.3 The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 12th February 2025 rejected this application, applying the ‘reasonable cause’ test, holding that there was no reason whatsoever, explained in any manner for the delay in filing this application. LMT slept over the documents and sought to produce the same, as mentioned in the application, to fill in the gaps in the evidence of PW-1. It was then concluded that allowing the application would be against the objective of the Commercial Courts Act, 20153[CCA].
3. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel appeared for LMT. Mr. Sanjay Gupta, and Mr. Ateev Mathur, learned counsel represented SCB. Heard. Perused and considered the written arguments of the parties.
4. What we are required to adjudicate is whether LMT’s prayer denied by the High Court is in accordance with law.
UNDERSTANDING THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT
5. Disputes of this nature, obviously civil, are governed by the Civil Procedure Code, 19084[CPC]. Various timelines have been mentioned therein for the procedure of civil suits. Section 34, CPC describes what a commercial suit is, saying as follows:
34… … … …
Explanation II.—For the purposes of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability.]
6. The recognition that, in view of the changing landscape of business, the law must adapt, is more than two decades old now. U
