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 for widening and deepening the Mithi River, allowing the dispute to proceed.
Justice Sandeep Marne’s single bench rejected an MMRDA plea seeking dismissal of the claim on procedural grounds. The court held that an error in naming the claimant does not automatically invalidate a case when the defect can be corrected under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
The dispute relates to a contract awarded by the MMRDA in March 2007 to a joint venture comprising Backbone Projects Limited (BPL) and Backbone Construction Private Limited (BBC). The work covered the stretch of the Mithi River between Mahim Causeway and the Dharavi Bridge, according to the report.
A commercial claim seeking recovery of more than Rs 115 crore, including interest, was filed in 2017 over disputes that arose during implementation of the project. The amount cited in the proceedings is Rs 115.65 crore.
The MMRDA had invoked Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC to seek rejection of the claim. Its argument was that the joint venture was not an independent legal entity and therefore could not file a case in its own name. The authority maintained that the claim should instead have been filed by the two constituent companies.
The contractors argued that the original contract had itself been executed in the name of the joint venture. They described filing the case under that name as a bona fide mistake and sought permission to add the two member companies formally as claimants in the proceedings.
The court accepted the contractors’ argument that the defect could be corrected. It referred to the powers available under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC to correct errors involving parties to a case. The bench observed that if every case filed in an incorrect claimant’s name were dismissed immediately, those procedural powers would lose their purpose.
The ruling does not decide the merits of the Rs 115.65 crore claim. It allows the commercial dispute against the MMRDA to continue after the court rejected the authority’s request for dismissal at the procedural stage.
The case concerns a major Mumbai watercourse whose widening and deepening formed part of efforts to improve the river channel. The court proceedings will now continue with the procedural defect capable of being corrected through the addition of the two contracting companies as parties to the claim.
