Commercial Litigants Cannot Produce Additional Documents In Piecemeal Manner: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that parties to commercial disputes cannot repeatedly seek to place additional documents on record after leading evidence, ruling that such an approach is incompatible with the purpose of ensuring the speedy resolution of commercial disputes.

"The plaintiff when leading evidence, is expected to not only produce all documents but also properly anticipate the questions that may be put to its witnesses by the other side. What cannot be countenanced is a stop and go or a piecemeal approach. Voluminous evidence too, is entirely an uninspiring ground," the court ruled,

A division bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh dismissed an appeal filed by Levitate Mobile Technologies Pvt. Ltd. against a Delhi High Court order refusing permission to place additional documents on record and recall its witness.

The court also ruled that the procedural framework under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 applies to pending suits that are transferred as commercial suits.

The dispute stemmed from an IT Professional Services Agreement executed in February 2013 between Levitate Mobile Technologies and Standard Chartered Bank for developing and managing the bank's mobile application. The application was launched on Android and iOS platforms, but the bank later instructed the company to take it down.

Claiming losses under the revenue-sharing arrangement, Levitate Mobile Technologies issued a legal notice seeking about ₹4.47 crore with interest before instituting a civil suit before the Delhi High Court.

The High Court allowed the company to place certain additional documents on record in 2018 and, on the same day, renumbered the matter as a commercial suit.

After the examination of the company's witness concluded in 2023, Levitate Mobile Technologies filed another application seeking to place more documents on record, including emails exchanged with the bank, agreements with other vendors and backend server data. It also sought to recall its witness for further examination. The High Court declined the request, holding that the delay had not been explained and that the application attempted to fill gaps in the evidence.

Before the Supreme Court, Levitate Mobile Technologies argued that the applicable standard was "reasonable cause" rather than the higher threshold of "sufficient cause".

While the court observed that the submission may be correct, it ruled that the company had failed to justify the delay even on the lower standard. It found that all the documents sought to be produced were already in the company's possession when the suit was filed and when it was earlier permitted to file additional documents.

Emphasising that the volume of material could not dilute the statutory discipline governing commercial litigation, the court observed,

"Evidence, however voluminous, cannot water down the statutory intent and rigours of the statute."

The court also noted that Levitate Mobile Technologies had already been granted one opportunity to place additional documents on record. It found that the reasons advanced in the second application substantially mirrored those relied upon in the earlier one. Allowing another application at that stage would, the court observed, amount to condoning a piecemeal approach to commercial litigation.

Levitate Mobile Technologies further contended that the stricter procedural framework under the Commercial Courts Act could not govern the proceedings because the suit had originally been instituted as an ordinary civil suit.

Rejecting the contention, the court observed,

"The statute has made its own application abundantly clear. Section 15 CCA which is under the heading 'transfer of pending suits' provides that (i) all suits and applications; (ii) of specified value; and (iii) shall be transferred to Commercial Division/Court as the case may be. Sub-section (3) provides clearly that upon transfer of such suit or application the procedures of the CCA shall apply thereto. The intent of the application of CCA to all pending matters is further elucidated by sub-section (5) which provides that if a transfer to the Commercial Division/Court does not take place as provided, any party may make an application before the Court to transfer the same. The only exception that has been provided against such transfer is for those cases where judgment has been reserved."

Referring to the progress of the litigation, the court noted that although the suit had been instituted in 2015, it was still at the stage of Levitate Mobile Technologies' evidence.

Commenting on the delay, the court observed, "We may say that even a snail may question the speed at which this trial is proceeding."

Finding no ground to interfere with the Delhi High Court's order, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It also directed that the underlying commercial suit be decided as expeditiously as possible.

For Petitioner: Advocate Preety Makkar

For Respondent: Manish Puliwal