[2026:RJ-JP:4675-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3552/2025 1. Managing Director/General Manager, Rajasthan State Road Development And Construction Corporation Limited, Setu Bhawan, Opposite Jhalana Doongari, Jaipur-Agra Bypass, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. Project Director, Rajasthan State Road Development And Construction, Corporation Limited, Unit Alwar 480 Vijay Nagar, Alwar (Raj.). ----Appellants Versus M/s Jagdish Prasad Agrawal AA Class, Thekedar Through Partners Vijay Kumar, Ravindra Kumar And Sunil Kumar Sons Of Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Agrawal Office 13 Alkapuri, Alwar (Raj.). ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta with Mr. Rahul Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order 02/02/2026 1. The challenge under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Act of 1996") is to the order passed by the Commercial Court, whereby objections raised under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 were rejected vide order dated 05.06.2025. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Commercial Court has erred in not accepting the objections raised by the appellants relating to the part of the award whereby, the Arbitrator has granted amount in terms of the calculation of extra consumption of Bitumen, treating the Bitumen required to be used, at 4.5%, whereas, the calculation of the payment was to be done in terms of treating it as 4.25%. [2026:RJ-JP:4675-DB] (2 of 2) [CMA-3552/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that as per the BSR, the rate was to be fixed treating it as 4.25% of Bitumen to be used and therefore, there is an error and perversity in the award passed by the Arbitrator. The concerned Commercial Court has failed to take into consideration. 4. We have considered the submissions, we notice that the arbitrator has examined the said aspect in detail and has reached to the conclusion that "if there is any difference in the original documents and provisions in MOST specification and original BSR than MORTH specifications shall prevail over the BSR and the G schedule. It is also to be mentioned here if there is any difference in between original BSR ad is original contract of G Schedule BSR and MOST specification will prevail." 5. Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to challenge the said aspect. It is also noticed that as per the G Schedule of MORTH specification if the depth of the road is 100 MM than Bitumen at the rate of 4.5% is required to be used. Hence, the claim of the claimant cannot be said to have been allowed illegal, nor we find any perversity in the award. The objections raised by the appellants was, therefore, rightly rejected. No case is made out for interference under Section 37 of the Act of 1996. 6. In view of the above, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed accordingly. 7. All pending applications also stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Gaurav/Riya/8