Photo of Gauhar Mirza

Gauhar Mirza

Subscribe to Gauhar Mirza's Posts

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

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…

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