A contractor must prove the computation and quantum of a contractual price-adjustment claim.

BSR and the State Project Director (SPD) entered into a construction contract for Package A-3 under the RMSA scheme.

BSR claimed price adjustment under Clause 40 of the Conditions of Contract.

The arbitral tribunal held that the price-adjustment clause formed part of the contract but rejected BSR’s claim for ₹4,53,24,186 for want of evidence establishing the calculation and amount due.

The Commercial Court dismissed BSR’s Section 34 challenge.

In this appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, BSR’s challenge was confined to the rejection of its price-adjustment claim.

1. Whether the arbitral tribunal’s rejection of BSR’s price-adjustment claim for failure to prove the amount claimed disclosed a ground for appellate interference

2. Whether the SPD’s alleged failure to dispute the quantum relieved BSR of the obligation to establish the basis and measure of its claim

Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for an appeal from an order refusing to set aside an arbitral award; the appeal was brought under that provision read with Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Clause 40 of the contract provided for price adjustment according to the formulae in the Contract Data and identified the relevant cost components.

A claimant seeking payment under that clause must establish both entitlement and the measure of the amount claimed; the court cited no judicial precedents in applying this principle.

Although the tribunal found that the price-adjustment clause was part of the contract, BSR had not provided the calculation sheets, supporting documents, or data needed to apply the contractual formulae.

The amount claimed also varied between the statement of claim, a spreadsheet, and a later statement, without explanation; BSR had not produced the underlying bills or evidence of the relevant cost parameters.

The SPD’s position that the clause did not apply did not remove BSR’s burden to prove the amount payable.

The tribunal’s rejection of the claim therefore disclosed no ground for interference, and the Commercial Court had correctly declined to set aside that part of the award.

Finding no ground to interfere with the award or the Commercial Court’s decision, the Court dismissed the appeal.