Bombay HC Refuses to Dismiss ₹115.65-Crore Mithi River Project Suit
The Bombay High Court has refused to dismiss a ₹115.65-crore recovery suit linked to the deepening and widening of the Mithi River between Mahim Causeway and Dharavi Bridge, ruling that filing the case under a joint venture's name was a procedural defect that can be rectified.
Justice Sandeep Marne rejected an application seeking the outright dismissal of the plaint, clarifying that an error in naming the plaintiff cannot automatically result in rejection when civil law provides a mechanism to correct it.
The underlying dispute stems from a civic infrastructure contract awarded in March 2007 to the BPL-BBC Joint Venture to execute widening and deepening works along the stretch of the Mithi River. The joint venture was formed by two registered firms, Backbone Projects Ltd. (BPL) and Backbone Construction Pvt. Ltd. (BBC).
Following disagreements and disputes during the execution of the river project, a commercial suit was instituted in 2017 to recover more than ₹115 crore along with interest. An application was subsequently moved seeking the rejection of the plaint, raising the objection that the joint venture was not an independent legal or juristic entity and therefore could not institute legal proceedings in its own name. The application argued that the recovery proceedings ought to have been filed directly by the two constituent companies.
Opposing the dismissal plea, the contractor submitted that filing in the joint venture's name was a bona fide mistake stemming from the fact that the original 2007 contract had also been executed under that same joint name. The contractor requested permission from the court to formally bring both registered constituent companies on record as plaintiffs to cure the technical defect.
Justice Marne accepted the submission, observing that the Code of Civil Procedure specifically empowers courts to rectify mistakes concerning parties to a suit. The judge noted that if plaints were dismissed simply because a suit was filed in the name of the wrong plaintiff, the powers conferred upon courts under Order I Rule 10 of the Code would be rendered otiose.
Noting that both Backbone Projects Ltd. and Backbone Construction Pvt. Ltd. were already clearly identified in the original plaint as members of the joint venture, the court held that the procedural defect could be cured and declined to reject the suit.
