A contractual price-adjustment clause does not relieve a claimant of proving the claimed escalation quantum.

BSR entered into a construction agreement with the State Project Director (SPD) for Package A-20 of the RMSA works.

The agreement included a price-adjustment clause, and the arbitral tribunal found that the clause formed part of the contract, notwithstanding a tender-document note stating that it would be treated as deleted.

BSR claimed ₹4,53,24,186 towards price adjustment, but the tribunal rejected the claim for want of evidence establishing the calculation and amount due.

It partly allowed other claims and awarded BSR ₹1,66,24,597, interest and costs.

The Commercial Court dismissed BSR’s petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

In this appeal under Section 37, BSR challenged only the rejection of its price-adjustment claim.

1. Whether the arbitral tribunal was justified in rejecting BSR’s price-adjustment claim because BSR failed to establish the amount claimed.

2. Whether the Commercial Court’s refusal to set aside that part of the award warranted appellate interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides the basis for an application to set aside an arbitral award, while Section 37(1)(c) provides for an appeal from an order refusing to set aside an award.

Under Clause 40.1 of the contract, price adjustment was to be calculated using the prescribed formulae in the Contract Data for the relevant components; a claimant seeking payment under that clause must establish both entitlement and the measure of the amount claimed.

Although the tribunal accepted that the price-adjustment clause formed part of the contract, that finding did not establish the amount payable.

The Contract Data required component-specific calculations, but BSR produced no calculation sheet or supporting documents demonstrating the relevant variables or the application of the formulae.

The claim was also inadequately particularised, and the amounts stated in the claim, an exhibit, and later written submissions differed without explanation; BSR did not produce the bills it said it had submitted.

As BSR bore the burden of proving the measure of its claim, the tribunal’s rejection was not a ground for setting aside the award, and the Commercial Court had properly declined to interfere.

The appeal was dismissed.