THE BEYOND OBITER LAW BLOG: Legal News
1 min read
The Supreme Court has reiterated that the primary objective of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is the expeditious resolution of commercial disputes and that parties cannot frustrate this objective by producing documents in a piecemeal manner. Holding that “evidence, however voluminous, cannot water down the statutory intent and rigours of the statute,” the Court upheld the rejection of an application seeking to place additional documents on record in a long-pending commercial suit.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Kotiswar Singh dismissed the appeal filed by M/s Levitate Mobile Technologies Pvt. Ltd., observing that all the documents sought to be introduced were already in the appellant's possession when the suit was instituted and even when an earlier application for additional documents had been allowed. The Court held that permitting repeated production of documents would undermine the procedural discipline envisaged under the Commercial Courts Act.
The dispute arose out of an IT Professional Services Agreement executed between Levitate Mobile Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Standard Chartered Bank for the development and management of a mobile application. During the pendency of the commercial suit, the appellant sought to file additional documents more than five years after the suit had been converted into a commercial suit. The Delhi High Court rejected the application, finding that no reasonable cause had been shown for the delay.
Affirming the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court observed that the Commercial Courts Act introduced specific procedural reforms, including strict rules on disclosure and discovery of documents, summary judgments and case management hearings, to ensure speedy disposal of high-value commercial disputes. Allowing parties to produce documents in instalments, despite having possession of them from the outset, would defeat the legislative intent of promoting certainty and efficiency in commercial litigation.
Expressing concern over the prolonged trial, the Bench remarked that although the suit had been instituted in 2015, the plaintiff’s evidence was still ongoing in 2026, observing that “even a snail may question the speed at which this trial is proceeding.” The Court concluded that no justifiable explanation had been offered for the delayed filing of documents and upheld the dismissal of the application.