Mumbai | September 8, 2026
The Bombay High Court has refused to dismiss a Rs 115.65 crore commercial claim against the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) arising from a contract to widen and deepen the Mithi River between Mahim Causeway and the Dharavi Bridge.
A single bench of Justice Sandeep Marne rejected MMRDA’s plea seeking dismissal of the case under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The authority had argued that the claim was filed in the name of a joint venture that was not a separate legal entity and therefore could not institute proceedings in its own name.
The dispute relates to a contract awarded by MMRDA in March 2007 to Backbone Projects Limited and Backbone Construction Private Limited as a joint venture. The work covered the widening and deepening of the Mithi River along the stretch between Mahim Causeway and the Dharavi Bridge.
A commercial claim was filed in 2017 seeking recovery of more than Rs 115 crore, including interest, over disputes that arose during the implementation of the project. MMRDA asked the court to reject the claim at the threshold, contending that it should have been filed by the two member companies rather than by the joint venture in its own name.
The contractors argued that the contract itself had been executed under the joint venture’s name and that filing the claim in that name was a bona fide error. They also sought permission to formally bring the two constituent companies on record as the plaintiffs.
The High Court accepted that the error in naming the plaintiff could be corrected. It held that where a procedural defect concerning the parties to a suit is capable of being rectified, the mistake does not automatically justify dismissal of the entire claim.
The court also referred to the powers available under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to correct or add parties to a proceeding. Justice Marne observed that those powers would become ineffective if every claim filed under an incorrect plaintiff name were rejected at the outset.
The ruling does not decide the contractors’ underlying claim or establish that MMRDA is liable to pay the amount sought. It allows the commercial dispute to continue after the court rejected the authority’s procedural challenge. The case concerns a contract awarded nearly two decades ago for work on one of Mumbai’s principal urban waterways.
