Archive · 7 Sep 2026
Bombay HC Refuses To Dismiss ₹115.65-Crore Mithi River Project Suit
The case is about a project to widen and deepen Mumbai’s Mithi River.
A contract for the work was given to a joint venture in 2007.
Later, the contractors went to court seeking more than ₹115 crore and interest.
The case was filed using the joint venture’s name.
The other side said this was wrong because the joint venture was not a separate legal entity.
The Bombay High Court said this naming mistake did not automatically end the case.
The two companies in the joint venture can be added as the plaintiffs.
The court therefore allowed the lawsuit to continue.
The Bombay High Court refused to dismiss a ₹115.65-crore suit linked to a 2007 Mithi River widening project.
The contract was awarded in March 2007 to the BPL-BBC Joint Venture for work between Mahim Causeway and Dharavi Bridge.
The suit, filed in 2017, seeks more than ₹115 crore plus interest over disputes during project execution.
The defendants argued that the joint venture was not a separate legal entity and could not sue in its own name.
Justice Sandeep Marne ruled that the naming error could be corrected by adding Backbone Projects Ltd. and Backbone Construction Pvt. Ltd. as plaintiffs.
- Who
- The BPL-BBC Joint Venture, comprising Backbone Projects Ltd. and Backbone Construction Pvt. Ltd., and the parties opposing its suit.
- What
- The Bombay High Court refused to reject a ₹115.65-crore suit over a Mithi River project because of a procedural error in naming the plaintiff.
- When
- The contract was awarded in March 2007, the suit was filed in 2017, and the ruling date is not specified.
- Where
- The dispute concerns the Mithi River stretch between Mahim Causeway and Dharavi Bridge; the ruling was issued by the Bombay High Court.
- Why
- The court held that the joint venture’s incorrect naming was a correctable procedural defect under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Application Seeking Dismissal
Contractor Seeking Correction
Whether the joint venture could sue
Application Seeking Dismissal
The applicant argued that the joint venture was not an independent legal or juristic entity and that the suit should have been filed by the two constituent companies.
Contractor Seeking Correction
The contractor said the suit was filed in the joint venture’s name as a bona fide mistake because the contract itself was executed under that name.
Effect of the procedural error
Application Seeking Dismissal
The applicant argued that the incorrect plaintiff name justified rejection of the plaint.
Contractor Seeking Correction
The contractor sought permission to bring Backbone Projects Ltd. and Backbone Construction Pvt. Ltd. formally on record as plaintiffs.
Court’s approach
Application Seeking Dismissal
The dismissal application relied on the procedural defect in the plaint.
Contractor Seeking Correction
The court held that the Code of Civil Procedure provides mechanisms to correct errors concerning parties, so the defect did not require dismissal.
- Claim amount
- More than ₹115 crore, reported as ₹115.65 crore, plus interest
- Project
- Widening and deepening of the Mithi River
- Contract date
- March 2007
- Suit filed
- 2017
- Project stretch
- Mahim Causeway to Dharavi Bridge
- Plaintiff issue
- The suit was filed in the joint venture’s name rather than the names of its two constituent companies
- Court decision
- The plaint was not rejected; the naming defect may be corrected