A price-escalation claim fails absent evidence establishing the contractual formula and claimed quantum.

BSR was awarded a construction package by the State Project Director (SPD).

The contract included a price-adjustment clause, which the Arbitral Tribunal found had formed part of the executed agreement despite a tender-document notation stating that the clause would be treated as deleted.

BSR claimed ₹4,53,24,186 in price adjustment but did not set out in its statement of claims how that amount was calculated or produce supporting bills and evidence applying the contractual formulae.

The Tribunal rejected the claim for want of proof. BSR’s Section 34 challenge was dismissed by the Commercial Court, and BSR appealed under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In the appeal, BSR confined its challenge to rejection of the price-adjustment claim.

Whether the arbitral award’s rejection of BSR’s price-adjustment claim warranted appellate interference, given BSR’s failure to establish the amount claimed.

Whether BSR’s assertion that the SPD did not dispute the quantum relieved BSR of the burden to prove the measure of its claim.

The appeal was brought under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; BSR’s underlying challenge was under Section 34 of the latter Act.

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

A claimant seeking contractual payment must establish both its entitlement and the amount claimed; the burden to prove the claim’s measure rests on the claimant.

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

BSR provided no calculation showing the relevant variables or supporting documents, and the amounts stated in its claim, spreadsheet and later submission were inconsistent and unexplained.

The SPD had denied the claim, so BSR remained responsible for proving both its entitlement and its quantum; the alleged absence of a specific dispute over quantum did not overcome the evidentiary deficiencies.

The High Court therefore found no ground to interfere with the Tribunal’s rejection of the claim.

The appeal was dismissed as unmerited.