Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Arbitration & Commercial LawSupreme Court of India

M/S. Levitate Mobile Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Standard Chartered Bank

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 674Decided 9 Jul 2026
C.A. No.-008786-008786 - 2026 (arising out of SLP(C) No.13250 of 2026)
Justice Sanjay Karol · Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh · Justice Vinod Chandran

Background

Levitate Mobile Technologies (LMT) had developed an app for Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) under a 2013 agreement, but SCB later had the app taken down, leading LMT to sue for over Rs.4.46 crore in a Delhi High Court commercial suit filed in 2015. Years into the trial, after issues were framed in 2016 and its own witness's evidence was finally completed only in 2023, LMT sought the court's permission to bring new documents (emails, vendor agreements, backend data) on record and recall its witness, citing points that had come up during cross-examination. The Delhi High Court's Single Judge rejected this application, and LMT appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court upheld the rejection, holding that even under the correct, comparatively lenient "reasonable cause" standard (rather than the stricter "sufficient cause" test the High Court had technically applied), LMT's decade-long delay and piecemeal approach to producing evidence it already possessed could not be justified. The Court traced the strict timeline-driven scheme of the Commercial Courts Act, emphasizing that the law is meant to ensure expeditious resolution of commercial disputes, and found that allowing repeated late document submissions, especially after a similar request had already been granted once before, would undermine that statutory purpose. It dismissed the appeal but directed that the underlying eleven-year-old suit be decided as expeditiously as possible.

Lesson Learnt

In commercial litigation governed by the Commercial Courts Act, parties must produce all documents in their possession at the earliest opportunity. Courts will not indulge repeated late-stage applications to introduce new evidence, however voluminous or complex the record, because the entire scheme of commercial court procedure is built around speed and finality.

M/S. Levitate Mobile Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Standard Chartered Bank – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware