The Bombay High Court has rejected the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority’s (MMRDA) plea to dismiss a Rs 115.65-crore suit filed by BPL-BBC Joint Venture over a 2007 project to widen and deepen the Mithi River between Mahim Causeway and Dharavi Bridge, ruling that an error in naming the plaintiff can be corrected.
MMRDA had invited tenders for the project in 2006, following which BPL-BBC Joint Venture, comprising Backbone Projects Ltd and Backbone Construction Ltd, submitted its bid. The authority accepted the bid in March 2007 and subsequently issued a work order worth approximately Rs 44.57 crore.
Disputes later emerged between the authority and the joint venture regarding execution of the contract. The joint venture subsequently approached the High Court seeking Rs 115.65 crore, along with interest, over various claims arising from the project.
MMRDA challenged the maintainability of the case, arguing that a joint venture does not have an independent legal identity. According to the authority, the lawsuit should have been filed by the two companies that formed the joint venture rather than in the joint venture’s name. It therefore sought dismissal of the suit.
The joint venture opposed the application, maintaining that the error was procedural and could be rectified by substituting or adding the two constituent companies as plaintiffs.
The High Court accepted this contention and held that although a joint venture is not a separate legal entity, filing proceedings in its name amounted to a curable error rather than a reason to terminate the case.
The court observed that legal provisions permit a court to add or replace the appropriate plaintiff when proceedings have been instituted in an incorrect name. It also noted that suing in the name of a wrong plaintiff does not constitute a ground for rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Consequently, the High Court dismissed MMRDA’s application seeking rejection of the plaint and allowed the Rs 115.65-crore dispute to proceed.
The ruling means the underlying contractual claims arising from the Mithi river widening and deepening project will now be examined on their merits, rather than being dismissed solely because of the manner in which the plaintiff was named.
The case relates to one of the major river infrastructure projects undertaken in Mumbai following the 2005 floods, with the disputed contract dating back nearly two decades.
Source: Mumbai Mirror
