The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the strict procedural framework under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 must be applied rigorously. (AI image)The Supreme Court has held that parties to a commercial dispute cannot repeatedly seek to place additional documents on record at different stages of the trial without demonstrating a reasonable cause. Stressing that the Commercial Courts Act is designed to ensure speedy adjudication, the Court ruled that permitting a piecemeal approach to evidence would frustrate the legislative objective of expeditious disposal of commercial disputes.The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the strict procedural framework under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 must be applied rigorously and that parties cannot seek to introduce evidence in a staggered manner merely because they later consider it relevant to their case.A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh dismissed an appeal filed by M/s Levitate Mobile Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (LMT), challenging a Delhi High Court order refusing permission to place additional documents on record after the evidence of its first witness had already concluded. The Court observed that commercial litigation cannot proceed on a "stop and go" basis, particularly where the documents were always within the party's possession.BackgroundThe dispute arose out of an IT Professional Services Agreement executed on 19.02.2013 between LMT and Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) for developing and managing a mobile banking application. According to LMT, considerable resources were invested in developing the application, which was eventually launched on Android and iOS platforms. Soon thereafter, however, SCB instructed LMT to take down the application.Claiming that the agreement contained a revenue-sharing arrangement and that the bank's decision had caused substantial financial loss, LMT issued a legal notice in April 2015 seeking damages of over ₹4.46 crore with interest. When the claim was denied, it instituted a civil suit before the Delhi High Court.Issues were framed in November 2016.In 2018, LMT successfully obtained permission to place certain additional documents on record, following which the matter was renumbered as a commercial suit under the Commercial Courts Act.The plaintiff's evidence progressed over the next few years, and the examination of its first witness concluded in May 2023.Several months later, LMT filed yet another application seeking permission to produce additional documents and recall the witness for further examination. The documents included email exchanges between the parties, agreements with third-party vendors and backend server data. LMT submitted that the material had become necessary because certain facts had emerged for the first time during the witness's cross-examination.The Delhi High Court rejected the application in February 2025, holding that no reasonable explanation had been offered for the delay and observing that the attempt appeared to be an effort to fill gaps in the evidence after the witness had already been examined. The High Court also noted that allowing such an application would undermine the very purpose of the Commercial Courts Act. Aggrieved by that decision, LMT approached the Supreme Court.Commercial Courts Act Intended To Ensure Speedy DisposalBefore examining the facts of the case, the Supreme Court undertook a detailed discussion of the legislative framework governing commercial disputes. The Bench noted that the Commercial Courts Act was enacted to ensure faster resolution of high-value commercial disputes by introducing stricter procedural timelines and effective case management. Referring to the Law Commission Reports that preceded the legislation, the Court observed that the enactment represented a conscious shift from the delays traditionally associated with ordinary civil litigation.The judgment points out that the Act prescribes fixed timelines at every important stage of the proceedings, including filing of written statements, disclosure of documents, inspection, appeals and pronouncement of judgments.Referring to its earlier decision in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP, the Court reiterated that the legislative intent is to ensure that commercial disputes are resolved "in a time bound manner" through a strict procedural framework. The Bench also relied upon Patil Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd., where the Supreme Court had emphasised that the Commercial Courts Act is intended to create an efficient dispute resolution system that strengthens investor confidence and improves the ease of doing business.Against this backdrop, the Court examined whether LMT had shown sufficient justification to invoke the exception contained in Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, for producing additional documents at such an advanced stage of the trial.The Court noted that LMT attributed the delay to the voluminous nature of the records, the large number of email exchanges and the fact that certain issues surfaced during the cross-examination of its witness. It also argued that the proposed documents merely supported the case already pleaded and did not introduce any new claim.The Bench, however, found that all the documents sought to be produced had always remained in LMT's possession. It further noted that this was not the first occasion on which LMT had sought permission to place additional documents on record. A similar application had already been allowed in 2018, yet the present set of documents was still withheld for more than five years thereafter.The Court observed that the real question was not whether the documents were relevant, but whether LMT had shown a reasonable cause for failing to produce them earlier, as required under the Commercial Courts Act and the amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.No Justification For Producing Documents In A Piecemeal MannerThe principal argument advanced by LMT before the Supreme Court was that the High Court had applied the wrong legal standard while rejecting its application. It argued that Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, requires a party to establish only a "reasonable cause" for producing additional documents, whereas the High Court had tested the application on the stricter standard of "sufficient cause."The Supreme Court agreed that the applicable standard under the Commercial Courts Act is "reasonable cause". However, it held that the distinction made no difference in the facts of the present case.According to the Bench, even if the lower threshold of "reasonable cause" was applied, LMT had failed to furnish any convincing explanation for withholding documents that had always been in its possession.The Court noted that the suit had been instituted in 2015, issues were framed in 2016, and the plaintiff's evidence commenced only years later. Despite having ample opportunity, LMT sought to produce another set of documents only after the cross-examination of its own witness had concluded.Therefore, rejecting the explanation that new facts emerged during cross-examination, the Bench observed that plaintiff leading evidence is expected to anticipate the defence that may be raised and place all relevant material before the Court at the appropriate stage."What cannot be countenanced is a stop and go or a piecemeal approach. Voluminous evidence too, is entirely an uninspiring ground."The Court held that permitting parties to repeatedly supplement their evidence whenever cross-examination exposes weaknesses would defeat the discipline introduced by the Commercial Courts Act.Commercial Courts Act Requires Strict Procedural DisciplineThe Bench reiterated that the Commercial Courts Act was enacted to fundamentally change the manner in which commercial disputes are conducted by prescribing strict timelines for pleadings, disclosure of documents and trial. Referring to Sudhir Kumar v. Vinay Kumar G.B., the Court observed that a plaintiff is expected to file all documents in its possession along with the plaint. Although the statute permits additional documents to be produced with the Court's leave, that exception can be invoked only after establishing a genuine and reasonable justification for the earlier non-disclosure.The Court also relied upon the three-Judge Bench decision in State of Maharashtra v. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd., where it was held that procedural timelines under commercial laws cannot be diluted merely on equitable considerations. The Court observed that parties must demonstrate diligence and bona fides before seeking relaxation of statutory requirements.The Bench found that LMT had already been granted one opportunity in 2018 to place additional documents on record. Significantly, the grounds raised in the present application were substantially similar to those relied upon in the earlier application, including the large volume of emails and the subsequent discovery of documents.The Court observed that all the documents sought to be produced in the present application were admittedly in LMT's possession from the very beginning. Having already availed one opportunity to file additional documents, LMT could not seek another opportunity years later on substantially the same grounds."The force of this proposition alone is sufficient," the Court observed while holding that the volume of evidence cannot dilute the statutory discipline introduced by the Commercial Courts Act.The Court also rejected LMT's arguments that the rigorous procedural framework of the Commercial Courts Act should not be applied because the suit had originally been instituted before the enactment came into force.The Bench noted that Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act expressly provides for the transfer of pending commercial disputes to Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions. Once such transfer takes place, the amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure automatically govern the proceedings unless judgment has already been reserved.The Court observed that the present suit was renumbered as a commercial suit in January 2018, the very day on which LMT's first application for production of additional documents was allowed. Consequently, the amended procedural regime had governed the proceedings for several years before the second application was filed in November 2023.Finding no merit in the appeal, the Supreme Court agreed with the Delhi High Court that LMT had failed to disclose any reasonable cause for producing additional documents after such prolonged delay. The Court held that entertaining successive applications of this nature would encourage a piecemeal approach to evidence and frustrate the objective of the Commercial Courts Act of securing speedy resolution of commercial disputes.Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. While affirming the High Court's order refusing permission to produce the additional documents and recall the plaintiff's witness, the Supreme Court directed that the commercial suit pending before the Delhi High Court be decided as expeditiously as possible.CIVIL APPEAL NO. __________________ OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 13250 of 2026)M/S. LEVITATE MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. Vs M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK & ANR.Appearance:For 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 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.(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)