Supreme Court Voices Concerns Over Prolonged Commercial Litigation
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India expressed its disapproval regarding the sluggish progress of a commercial lawsuit pending before the Delhi High Court since 2015. The case, Levitate Mobile Technologies Private Limited (LMT) vs. Standard Chartered Bank (SCB), has been under scrutiny for its prolonged duration, with the Supreme Court highlighting this delay as a significant concern.
Snail’s Pace of Trial
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh remarked on the extremely slow pace of the proceedings, humorously noting that “even a snail may question the speed at which this trial is proceeding.” This comment was made while juxtaposing the current reality against the legislative intent behind the Commercial Courts Act of 2015, which aims to expedite civil and business litigation in India.
Background of the Dispute
The legal dispute originated from a professional services agreement in February 2013, where LMT was contracted to develop and manage a mobile application for SCB. After the app’s launch on both Android and iOS platforms, SCB instructed LMT to remove it, leading to LMT claiming losses under a revenue-sharing agreement. Following SCB’s denial of the claim, LMT issued a legal notice in April 2015, demanding ₹4.46 crore with an 18% annual interest rate. Subsequently, LMT filed a civil suit in May 2015, which was later reclassified as a commercial suit in January 2018.
Legal Proceedings and Supreme Court’s Decision
Despite the High Court’s initial allowance for LMT to introduce additional documents, the examination of LMT’s first witness concluded only in May 2023. LMT’s subsequent application in November 2023 to introduce further documents and recall the witness was rejected by the High Court in February 2025. The court found that LMT had not justified the delay and was attempting to bridge evidential gaps.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that all pertinent documents were available to LMT at the time of filing the suit and when their first application was approved. The bench criticized a “stop and go” or piecemeal approach in evidence presentation, reaffirming that voluminous evidence should not undermine the statutory intent of the Commercial Courts Act.
More Read
Implications of the Ruling
The Court reiterated the necessity for expeditious resolution of high-value business disputes, as envisioned by the Commercial Courts Act. It dismissed LMT’s argument against the application of stricter commercial court procedures, citing Section 15 of the Act which mandates these procedures for pending suits transferred to such courts.
While dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court instructed the Delhi High Court to resolve the case promptly. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan represented LMT, while SCB was represented by a team of advocates led by Sanjay Gupta.
