* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 11^th December, 2025 Judgment pronounced on: 23^rd January, 2026 + O.M.P. (COMM) 170/2019 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Parv Garg and Mr. Pawas Kulshrestha, Advocates.

versus M/S KOCHI AROOR TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Abhishek Gupta and Mr. Suyash Gupta, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL AMIT BANSAL, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) seeking setting aside of the Award dated

10^th October, 2018 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal (‘Award’).

2. The petitioner (respondent in the arbitration proceedings) shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘NHAI’ and the respondent (claimant in the arbitration proceedings) shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘KATPL’.

FACTUALBACKGROUND

3. The brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present petition are set out below:

i. On 28^th April, 2015, the parties entered into a Concession Agreement for operation, maintenance and transfer of Edapally-Vyttila-Aroor Section from 342.00 Km to 358.750 Km, in the State of Kerala on OMT basis on 28^th April, 2015.

ii. Disputes arose between the parties in relation to the Concession Agreement. The Claimant wrote to the Chairman, NHAI for a settlement under Clause 36.2 of the Concession Agreement, which did not materialise. Accordingly, the claimant invoked the arbitration clause. Both the parties appointed their respective Nominee Arbitrators who mutually appointed the Presiding Arbitrator.

iii. KATPL made the following claims in its statement of claim:-

“(a)Claim No.1: Claim of Discrepancy in User Fee Rates:

Rs.9,34,23,525/-

(b) ClaimNo.2: ClaimforDelayinCOD:Rs.2,72,54,400/-.

(c) ClaimNo.3:ClaimDuetoissuanceof FreePasses:Rs.93,89,500/-.”

iv. Claim 2 was further divided into four sub-claims as is evident from paragraph 5.29 of the Award. For ease of reference, relevant extract from the Award is set out below:

“5.29 … (a) Damages payable by the Authority under Clause 13.1.2 of CA for delay in achieving the COD from 12.06.2015 to 06.09.2015, amountingtoRs.1,40,35,200/-.

(b) Damages on account of delay in Fee Notification from 12.06.2015 to 01.07.2015 by the Respondent under clause 4.2 of CA amounting to Rs.15,50,400/-.

(c) Damages on account of delay in Validation of user fee rates from

12.06.2015to21.08.2015amountingtoRs.57,12,300/-.

(d) Refund of the amount withdrawn by NHAI from Escrow account on

11.11.2016for Rs.59,56,800/-.

Thetotal of all abovecomes toRs.2,72,54,400/-.”

v. In addition, KATPL also claimed interest on the aforesaid amounts along with costs.

vi. NHAI filed its statement of defence. No counterclaim was filed on behalf of NHAI.

vii. The Arbitral Tribunal gave an Award in favour of KATPL and against NHAI.

viii. The sums awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal in respect of claims 1, 2 and 3 which are subject matter of challenge in the present petition are as below:

a. Claim No.1: Claim of Discrepancy in the User Fee Rates -

Rs.9,34,23,525/-

b. Claim No.2: Claim of Delay in COD - Rs. 1,91,76,000/-.

c. Claim No.3: Claim due to issuance of Free passes -

Rs.93,89,500/-.

4. In respect of Claim 2, the Arbitral Tribunal rejected claims 2(b) and 2(c) and allowed claims 2(a) and 2(d). During the course of submissions, NHAI has only raised objections qua Claim no. 2(a).

SUBMISSIONSONBEHALFOFNHAI

5. Mr. Parv Garg, counsel appearing on behalf of NHAI has made the following submissions in support of the present petition:

i. In relation to claim no. 1, the Arbitral Tribunal has wrongly held that NHAI is in breach of the Concession Agreement. In this regard, reliance in placed on Clause 22.1.1 and Clause 22.1.2 of the Concession Agreement. In terms of the aforesaid Clauses, the toll has to be determined by the Ministry of Highways, Government of India (‘Ministry’) and not by NHAI. Hence, NHAI was not empowered to determine the user fee rates. Accordingly, the findings given by the Arbitral T