Even a snail may question the speed of trial: Supreme Court on delay in commercial suit before Delhi HC

The Supreme Court recently criticised the slow pace of trial in commercial suit pending before the Delhi High Court since 2015 [Levitate Mobile Vs Standard Chartered Bank].

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh observed that even a snail may question the speed at which the trial was proceeding.

“The suit in question was filed in 2015. As of 2026, plaintiff’s evidence is ongoing. We may say that even a snail may question the speed at which this trial is proceeding. When this reality is juxtaposed with the intent of the legislation and the malady it sought to cure within civil and specifically business litigation in India, the contrast is stark,” the Court said.

The Court made the observation while rejecting a plea by Levitate Mobile Technologies Private Limited (LMT) to introduce additional documents in its suit against Standard Chartered Bank (SCB).

The dispute arose from a professional services agreement executed in February 2013. LMT was engaged to develop and manage a mobile application for SCB.

The application was launched on Android and iOS platforms. However, SCB subsequently instructed LMT to take it down.

LMT then claimed losses under a revenue-sharing clause. In April 2015, it issued a legal notice demanding ₹4.46 crore along with interest at 18 percent per annum.

After SCB denied the claim, LMT filed a civil suit before the Delhi High Court in May 2015. Issues were framed in November 2016. The suit was renumbered as a commercial suit in January 2018.

On the same day, the High Court allowed LMT’s first application to place additional documents on record.

The examination of LMT’s first witness was completed only in May 2023. In November that year, LMT filed another application seeking to introduce emails exchanged with SCB, agreements with other vendors and backend data stored on servers. It also sought to recall the witness.

The High Court rejected the application in February 2025. It found that LMT had not provided a reasonable explanation for the delay and was seeking to fill gaps in its evidence.

The Supreme Court upheld this finding. It noted that all the documents were already in LMT’s possession when the suit was filed and when its first application for producing additional material was allowed.

“What cannot be countenanced is a stop and go or a piecemeal approach. Voluminous evidence too, is entirely an uninspiring ground,” the Court said.

The Bench stressed that the Commercial Courts Act was enacted to ensure the expeditious resolution of high-value business disputes. Allowing LMT’s application would condone a piecemeal approach contrary to the object of the law, it added.

“Evidence, however voluminous, cannot water down the statutory intent and rigours of the statute,” the judgment stated.

The Court also rejected the argument that the stricter commercial court procedure could not apply to the suit since it was originally filed in 2015. It noted that Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act expressly applies the procedure to pending suits transferred to commercial courts.

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

However, the Supreme Court directed the High Court to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for LMT along with advocates Preety Makkar, Abhimanyu Garg, Aditi Aggarwal, Shourya Dasgupta, Madhav Gupta and Tushar Srivastava.

Advocates Sanjay Gupta, Ateev Mathur, Manish Paliwal, Aasheesh Gupta, Jagriti Ahuja, Anmol Mehta and Trupti Das represented Standard Chartered Bank.

[Read Judgment]