Photo of Gauhar Mirza

Partner in the Disputes Practice at the Delhi-NCR office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. Gauhar specializes in technology law space and is also an expert in arbitration (domestic and international). He has represented various private and public corporations before various judicial fora in ad hoc and institutional arbitrations, courts and other tribunals. He regularly advises and represents his clients on a host of disputes relating to construction contracts, shareholder’s disputes, licensing, distribution, land acquisitions, IT Law, policy issues and intermediary liability,  etc.

Gauhar regularly appears and argues in all judicial forums and tribunals including the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts across India. He can be reached at gauhar.mirza@cyrilshroff.com

EXISTENCE AND VALIDITY OF AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE: A DEEP DIVE INTO THE CHANGING PERSPECTIVE ON THE COURT’S INTERVENTION AT THE PRE-ARBITRAL STAGE: PART-II

Duro revalidated in Mayavati Trading

The Supreme Court in a three-Judge Bench decision of Mayavati Trading (P) Ltd. v. Pradyuat Deb Burman[i] (“Mayavati Trading”), considered the impending omission of Section 11(6A) of the Act vide the Amendment Act of 2019. It was conclusively stated that Section 11(6A) is confined to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement and is to be understood in the narrow sense as has been laid down in Duro. The Supreme Court also expressly overruled Antique Exports, recognising that its reasoning relied on the pre-amended position, i.e., before Amendment Act of 2015 introduced Section 11(6A).Continue Reading Existence and Validity of an Arbitration Clause: A Deep Dive into the Changing Perspective on the Court’s Intervention at the Pre-Arbitral Stage: Part 2

[PART I]

The question of the Court’s intervention at the time of constitution of an arbitral tribunal underwent a seminal shift in India in 2016. This shift was brought about by the insertion of Section 11(6A)[i] in the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) through the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, No. 3 of 2016 (“Amendment Act of 2015”). The introduction of Section 11(6A) limited the Court’s role at the juncture of appointment of arbitrators. The Courts sole task now was to determine whether an arbitration agreement ‘existed’ or not. Thus, inquiries  related to ‘validity’ of an arbitration agreement were to be decided by an arbitral tribunal itself,  which had the powers to rule on its own jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Act (a provision conforming to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985).Continue Reading Existence and Validity of An Arbitration Clause: A Deep Dive into the Changing Perspective on the Court’s Intervention at the Pre-Arbitral Stage: Part 1

CONSTRUCTION ARBITRATION AND THE NUMBERS GAME: 
AN ANALYSIS OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT’S RECENT DECISION IN SATLUJ V. JP

A civil construction dispute is invariably a smorgasbord of contentious issues like price escalation, variation in quantities and/or costs, force majeure events and technical hindrances. Given the complex nature of a construction dispute and the claims involved, arbitration is increasingly becoming the preferred choice of parties as an ADR mechanism because of the flexibility and effectiveness it offers. However, the arbitrator(s) in such disputes must wear the hat of a legal interpreter, economist and a mathematician, a vocation few will be envious of.Continue Reading CONSTRUCTION ARBITRATION AND THE NUMBERS GAME: AN ANALYSIS OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT’S RECENT DECISION IN SATLUJ V. JP

Not Always Beneficial To Make It To The “Hall Of Fame”: Dissecting Delhi High Court’s Decision In Microsoft V. Zoai

In a unique fact scenario, the sole arbitrator, in a domain name dispute between parties, named himself in the “Hall of Fame” for giving a particular type of decision in such disputes. Upon challenge to the arbitral award passed, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi exercised its powers under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) and set it aside.

This article examines the reasoning given by the Hon’ble High Court to determine what would constitute a reasonable apprehension of bias, and the implications of a court setting aside arbitral awards on grounds of bias when an arbitrator has the “propensity” to pass certain types of orders.Continue Reading Not Always Beneficial To Make It To The “Hall Of Fame”: Dissecting Delhi High Court’s Decision In Microsoft V. Zoai

Delhi HC’s Margo V. Railtel Order - Analysing Impartiality in Arbitrator Appointments Blog

As with any legal proceeding, an arbitrator’s impartiality and independence is the bedrock of a fair and valid arbitration proceeding. In its recent decision in the case of Margo Networks Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Railtel Corporation of India Ltd (“Margo v. Railtel”),[1] the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi exercised its powers under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”), with the intention to highlight the importance of appointing arbitrators in a manner that is unbiased and does not favour any one party.Continue Reading Delhi HC’s Margo V. Railtel Order: Analysing Impartiality in Arbitrator Appointments

The immunity granted under Section 79(1) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“the Act”) to intermediaries, commonly referred to a ‘safe harbour provision’, is not absolute.  Non-compliance with an order under Section 69A is one such instance when the immunity erodes[1].

Section 69A empowers the government to issue directions to government agencies or intermediaries to block public access to any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource, if it falls under any of the grounds of concern mentioned in Section 69A itself (discussed below in detail).Continue Reading The Twitter Verdict: Examining The Efficacy Of Section 69a In The Background Of Karnataka High Court’s Latest Decision