A price-adjustment claim fails when the contractor does not prove its contractual computation and quantum.

BSR sought payment for price adjustment under a construction contract with the State Project Director (SPD).

The arbitral tribunal held that the price-adjustment clause formed part of the contract but rejected BSR’s claim of ₹4,53,24,186 because BSR had not established how the amount was calculated or produced supporting evidence.

The Commercial Court dismissed BSR’s Section 34 petition. In the present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, BSR challenged the rejection of its price-adjustment claim; its challenge was confined to that claim.

1. Whether the arbitral award’s rejection of BSR’s price-adjustment claim warranted interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, where BSR had not substantiated the amount claimed.

2. Whether the SPD’s alleged failure to dispute the quantum relieved BSR of the burden of establishing the amount claimed.

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides the framework for challenging an arbitral award, while Section 37(1)(c) permits an appeal from an order refusing to set aside an award; the appeal was also brought under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Under Clause 40 of the contract, price adjustment was to be calculated using the applicable formulae in the Contract Data for specified cost components.

A party claiming payment must establish both its entitlement and the measure of the amount claimed; the judgment identifies no separate precedent as the basis for this principle.

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 calculation by specified formulae, but BSR provided no supporting calculation or evidence for the relevant variables. Its claim materials also stated inconsistent amounts, and the pleadings did not explain how the claimed sum had been computed.

The SPD’s denial of the claim meant BSR remained responsible for proving both entitlement and quantum; the court therefore found no basis to disturb the tribunal’s evidentiary conclusion.

The appeal was dismissed.