The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) has won a significant arbitration case against concessionaire Uchit Expressway Private Limited in a dispute over the six-laning project on the 93.5 kilometre Chittorgarh-Udaipur section of National Highway 76 in Rajasthan. The Arbitral Tribunal substantially backed NHAI’s position, protecting public money that was at risk.
The three-member panel, operating under the Society for Affordable Redressal of Disputes (SAROD), examined competing claims and counter-claims filed under the concession agreement for the project. NHAI has reported this as part of a broader pattern of successful defence of public interest in highway project disputes.
Key facts
- Project: Six-laning of Chittorgarh-Udaipur section, NH-76, Rajasthan; length 93.5 km
- Concessionaire claim: Rs 366.53 crore (rejected overall)
- Prolongation cost claim: Rs 238.18 crore, tied to COVID-19 delays (rejected)
- Amount awarded to concessionaire: Rs 14.51 crore plus conditional refund of Rs 2.82 crore
- Counter-claims awarded to NHAI: Rs 33.54 crore (principal amount)
- Project completion date: March 2021
- Arbitral body: Three-member tribunal under SAROD
What the concessionaire claimed
Uchit Expressway Private Limited, promoted by TRIL Roads Pvt. Ltd., had filed for Rs 366.53 crore in total claims. A major part of this, Rs 238.18 crore, was claimed as prolongation cost tied to project delays attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. The concessionaire argued that these delays justified compensation for extended project duration and associated costs.
What the tribunal decided
The Arbitral Tribunal rejected the concessionaire’s prolongation cost claim in full. After detailed examination, the tribunal allowed only Rs 14.51 crore of the concessionaire’s total claims. Additionally, it ordered a conditional refund of Rs 2.82 crore to the concessionaire.
In counter-claims, the tribunal awarded NHAI Rs 33.54 crore as principal amount. This comprised: Rs 27 crore for work dropped from the original project scope by the concessionaire; Rs 4.03 crore for the concessionaire’s failure to maintain the highway to required standards; and Rs 2.51 crore for unauthorized toll collection made after the project completion date of March 2021.
Why this matters
The ruling protects public money invested in national highway infrastructure. By rejecting the larger concessionaire claims, particularly the COVID-19 related prolongation cost, the tribunal upheld the contractual discipline that governs how highway projects are financed and executed. This sends a signal about NHAI’s approach to defending the terms agreed with private partners under concession arrangements.
National Highway projects in India typically involve private concessionaires who build or upgrade highways in exchange for revenue rights, usually through toll collection. These agreements contain specific conditions about timelines, scope of work, maintenance obligations and penalties. Disputes often arise when one party claims the other has not performed its obligations or when external events like pandemics affect project timelines.
Broader pattern of wins
NHAI has reported winning multiple arbitration cases in recent months. In July 2026, NHAI defended itself against claims worth around Rs 3,177 crore in the Bareilly Highways Project arbitration. In June 2026, an arbitration over the Tumkur-Chitradurga six-laning project in Karnataka was decided in NHAI’s favour for Rs 1,202 crore. In April 2026, two arbitration cases involving the Panipat-Jalandhar Highway Project were settled for Rs 819.96 crore in favour of NHAI, against concessionaire claims of Rs 8,375 crore and NHAI counter-claims of Rs 2,888.64 crore. In May 2026, an arbitration over six-laning of the Kamrej-Chalthan section on NH-48 in Gujarat was settled for only Rs 54 lakh against contractor claims of Rs 174.49 crore.
What this means for you
For citizens and businesses depending on national highways, these arbitration outcomes support the financial viability of highway projects. When concessionaires face lower-than-claimed compensation, it reduces cost escalation that might otherwise be passed on through higher toll rates or project delays. For competitive exam aspirants, these cases illustrate how contractual frameworks in infrastructure projects are enforced and how disputes are resolved through arbitration rather than lengthy court litigation.