- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36372-DB COMAP No. 530 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 530 OF 2024 BETWEEN: THE STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR RASHTRIYA MADHYAMIKA SHIKSHANA ABHIYANA NEW ANNEX BUILDING K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA) AND: KBR INFRATECH LIMITED A REGISTERED COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: No.1, 1ST FLOOR, 8TH CROSS TATA NAGAR, BALAJI LAYOUT RMV EXTENSION, 2ND STAGE POST BENGALURU-560 094 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. K. BABU RAJU S/O SRI. K. RAMAKRISHNAMA RAJU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. VANI H, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36372-DB COMAP No. 530 of 2024 THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1-A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015, READ WITH SECTION 37 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.09.2024, PASSED IN COM.A.P. No.200/2023 ON THE FILE OF LXXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This appeal is filed being aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.09.2024 passed by the LXXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (Commercial Court) in Com.A.P.No.200/2023. 2. We have heard Smt. Shwetha Krishnappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellant and Smt. Vani. H, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36372-DB COMAP No. 530 of 2024 3. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the issues raised in this Commercial Appeal have already been considered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Commercial Appeal No.133/2025 and the appeal has been dismissed by judgment dated 30.07.2025. The copy of the judgment is placed before us. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellant however contended that the additional grounds have been raised in this appeal and that the grant of interest by the Arbitral Tribunal at the rate of 12% per annum is completely excessive and is not informed by any reasons. It is further contended that the Price Adjustment Clause had been specifically deleted from the notified contract and the e-portal had also specifically contained a note that the said clause stands deleted. It is therefore contended that the finding of the Arbitral Tribunal that the claimant was entitled to pay Price Adjustment was untenable. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36372-DB COMAP No. 530 of 2024 5. We have considered the contentions advanced. We have also perused the appeal and the grounds raised therein. We notice that the specific contention raised in the appeal is to the effect that the provision for price escalation had been omitted from the award and that the Arbitral Tribunal erred in awarding the claim as sought for. It is further contended that though this aspect had been specifically raised before the Commercial Court, the contentions of the appellant were not properly considered. Further, this appeal raises the question of award of interest. It is contended that the award of interest at 12% per annum by the learned Arbitrator was without any discussion on the point and was therefore patently illegal. It is submitted that though this aspect was specifically raised before the Court, the said aspect has not been considered at all. 6. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, we notice that the question with regard to existence or otherwise of the Price Adjustment Clause and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36372-DB COMAP No. 530 of 2024 the effect of a note in the e-portal regarding its deletion has been considered by this Court in Commercial Appeal No.133/2025. This Court found that the finding of fact by the Tribunal that the contract entered into between the parties contained the price variation clause at clause No.39 is, undisputed. It was therefore found that the finding of the Arbitral Tribunal that the respondent was entitled to the amount claimed on the basis of the price variation clause, could not have been interfered with by the Commercial Court exercising its limited powers under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 7. In the instant case also, it is an admitted fact that the contract signed between the parties contained the price variation clause. This aspect has been specifically considered by the learned Arbitrator. Further, with regard to payment of interest, the learned Arbitrator found that the contract in question provided for interest on delayed payments. Having found that the claimant was entitled to an amount of Rs.2,21,01,285/- towards price variation, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36372-DB COMAP No. 530 of 2024 the learned Arbitrator also found that there was a delay of 1350 days in making the payment deducting 60 days as the period for processing and releasing payments, interest at 12% per annum was awarded for the amount found to be payable. 8. Having considered the contentions advanced, we find that the learned Arbitrator had considered the provisions of the contract and had found it fit to award interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The award of interest was a specific ground of challenge raised by the appellant before the Commercial Court. The said aspect was considered as point No.1 in the judgment under appeal and the Court has come to the conclusion that the award of interest by the sole Arbitrator cannot be interfered with. Further, all other contentions raised stand covered by the judgment in Commercial Appeal No.133/2025. We find no reason to interfere in the judgment of the Commercial Court upholding the award of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36372-DB COMAP No. 530 of 2024 the Arbitrator in these proceedings. The appeal therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed. The parties shall suffer their respective costs. All pending interlocutory applications shall stand dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39