The Supreme Court remarked that even a snail would question the pace of a civil trial after noting that a suit filed in 2015 remained at the plaintiff’s evidence stage in 2026. The Court termed the delay starkly inconsistent with legislative intent.
The Supreme Court remarked that even a slow-moving creature like a snail might question the pace of a trial, particularly when a case filed in 2015 was still at the stage of the plaintiff’s evidence as of 2026.
Delivering the verdict, a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh observed,
“The suit in question was filed in 2015. As of 2026, the 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 ruling came on an appeal by a private firm challenging a February 2025 order of the Delhi High Court.
The bench noted that the suit, originally instituted in May 2015, was later renumbered and registered as a commercial suit under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in January 2018.
The Delhi High Court had dismissed the firm’s plea seeking permission to place additional documents on record and to recall a witness for further examination in the ongoing proceedings before the High Court.
The Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal against that order.
While doing so, the bench declined to accept the firm’s submission that the relevance of the documents sought to be produced should be the determining factor. The court further stated that the documents the firm wanted to introduce were already in its possession both when the plaint was filed and during the period when additional evidence was later submitted.
The bench said,
“If the present application is allowed, what this court would be essentially doing is condoning a piecemeal approach to the proceedings of a commercial suit the procedure for which has entirely been conceived for promoting the ease of business and recognising the need for expediency in resolving high stakes disputes,”
Concluding the matter, the Supreme Court directed that the suit be decided as expeditiously as possible, and it dismissed the appeal.
The dispute stemmed from a professional services agreement signed in February 2013. Under this arrangement, LMT was hired to develop and manage a mobile application for SCB.
The application was rolled out for both Android and iOS users. However, SCB later directed LMT to remove the application from public access.
Following the shutdown, LMT invoked a revenue-sharing provision and claimed it had suffered losses. In April 2015, LMT sent a legal notice demanding Rs.4.46 crore, along with interest at 18% per annum.
ALSO READ: Delhi Prisons Starts Recruitment for 14 Law Officer Posts After High Court Notice
When SCB rejected the demand, LMT instituted a civil suit before the Delhi High Court in May 2015. The pleadings proceeded to the stage of framing issues in November 2016, and the matter was subsequently reclassified as a commercial suit in January 2018.
On the same date as the commercial reclassification, the High Court granted LMT’s first application permitting additional documents to be brought on record.
Despite these developments, the examination of LMT’s first witness did not conclude until May 2023. In November 2023, LMT filed a further application seeking to rely on additional material, including emails exchanged with SCB, agreements with other vendors, and backend data stored on servers. LMT also requested that the witness be recalled for further examination.
Case Title: Levitate Mobile Vs Standard Chartered Bank