Professional practice

  • Gourab has developed his practice mainly before the Supreme Court of India as a Senior Counsel with an emphasis on commercial matters, and particularly commercial arbitration.
  • He appears as counsel in a large number of domestic and international commercial arbitrations and investment arbitrations in India and overseas and routinely appears before the Indian courts on behalf of clients seeking enforcement of foreign awards. He is regularly briefed by leading private companies as also Indian Public Sector Undertakings.
  • Currently, a private legal practitioner, Gourab has also been a government legal officer, both at the Federal and the Provincial levels. While Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India, Gourab represented the Government of India in a number of sensitive and landmark cases. In Republic of Italy v Union of India [2013] 4 SCC 721, the Supreme Court held that India had concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute the Italian marines accused of shooting Indian fishermen within the Exclusive Economic Zone of India.
  • He has also advised the Government in the case of Kulvir Singh Barapind v The Government of the Republic of India, et al, a case before the U.S. courts under which the Government was sued under the Alien Torts Claim and summons were served on the Government, various governmental entities and officials (including the Prime Minister and various Cabinet Ministers); and succeeded in receiving an order from the court in the U.S. granting the motion to dismiss the case against the Republic of India. Further, on numerous occasions he has advised the Ministry of External Affairs on various matters concerning Public International Law.
  • While as a government legal officer and in private practice, Gourab has also successfully represented his clients before the Supreme Court in several civil and commercial cases including Centrotrade Minerals & Metals Inc. v Hindustan Copper Limited 2020 SCC OnLine SC 479, Jaiprakash Associates Limited v Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Limited (2019) 2 SCALE 718, K. Kishan v M/s Vijay Nirman Company Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 10 SCALE 256, SEBI v Rakhi Trading and Others (2018) 13 SCC 753, Essar Steel Ltd v Union of India and Ors. [2016] 11 SCC 1, New India Assurance Company Ltd v Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd [2015] 2 SCC 424, MECL v AK Diskhit [2015] 2 SCC 535, BHEL v Tata Projects Ltd [2015] 5 SCC 682, UPSC v Arun Kumar Sharma [2015] 12 SCC 600, 527.
  • Gourab has often represented clients such as subordinate judiciary judges’ associations pro bono in the Supreme Court of India. Apart from that, he has been appointed amicus curiae by the Courts in a number of matters relating to land laws, international commercial arbitration, Supreme Court practice and procedure, as well as indirect tax.



Gourab has appeared before the Courts, before the Competition Commission of India and also before the Competition Appellate Tribunal (a specialized appellate Tribunal set up under the Competition Act, 2002) for the purpose of representing clients across several fields in matters pertaining to Indian competition law. He was engaged by, and represented, a cement company accused of cartelization in the Competition Appellate Tribunal.

Gourab has represented the Petitioner in Saurabh Tripathy v. Competition Commission of India & Anr. (2019) SccOnline Del 1049, a case dealing with the dichotomy between the Competition Commission’s findings vis-à-vis the report of Director General.


Gourab has appeared in numerous arbitration proceedings. Some important cases (with subject matter in parentheses) pertaining to Indian Arbitration in which Gourab has appeared are –

  1. Presently representing Amazon Inc. in its disputes against Future Retail and Reliance at the Delhi High Court (Enforcement of an emergency award against a non-signatory third party).
  2. Government of India v Vedanta Limited & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 3185/2020], pronounced on 16.09.2020 (Gourab was appointed as an Amicus Curiae to assist the Supreme Court in interpreting the New York Convention and the interplay of Malaysian law and Indian law)
  3. Glencore International AG v Hindustan Zinc Limited [O.M.P. (EFA) (Comm.) 9/2019] (Territorial jurisdiction in enforcement of foreign awards in India)
  4. Centrotrade Minerals & Metals Inc. v Hindustan Copper Limited 2020 SCC OnLine SC 479 (Enforcement of foreign awards in India)
  5. Jaiprakash Associates Limited v Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Limited (2019) 2 SCALE 718 (Levy of interest on arbitral awards)
  6. Represented a judgment debtor successfully in Kishan v M/s Vijay Nirman Company Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 10 SCALE 256 where an arbitral award was held to be a disputed debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.
  7. Antrix Corporation Ltd. v. Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 4 Arb. LR 66 (Delhi) (Challenge to a multi-million-dollar arbitration award). A Special Leave Petition against the Delhi High Court judgment is presently pending before the Supreme Court of India, where Gourab is appearing for Antrix. Also advised on enforcement of the Devas award in France and in the USA.
  8. M/S. Centrotrade Minerals & Metal Inc. v Hindustan Copper Ltd. [2017] 2 SCC 228 (Validity of multi-tier arbitration clauses).
  9. xstrata Coal Marketing AG v Dalmia Bharat (Cement) Ltd [2016] 6 ArbLR 270(Delhi) (Enforcement of a foreign award in India)
  10. Glencore International AG v Dalmia Bharat (Cement) Ltd. (2017) 4 Arb. LR 228 (Delhi) (Enforcement of a foreign awards in India)
  11. Venture Global Engineering v Satyam Computer Services [2008] 4 SCC 190. Gourab is presently appearing for the Petitioner before a three-judge bench in a reference related to the same case (Challenge to the enforcement of a foreign award in India on grounds of fraud).
  12. B.P & Co v Patel Engineering [2005] 8 SCC 618 (Jurisdiction of courts and arbitral tribunals to adjudicate on the nature, scope and validity of arbitration clauses. This case was decided by a Constitutional Bench).
  13. Smita Conductors v Euro Alloys [2001] 7 SCC 728 (Enforcement of foreign awards in India).
  14. Sanshin Chemicals Industry v Oriental Carbons & Chemicals, [2001] 3 SCC 341 (Seat of Arbitration).
  15. Thyssen Stahlunion Gmbh v Steel Authority of India, [1999] 9 SCC 334 (Applicability of the new Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996).
  16. Sumitomo Heavy Industries v Oil & Natural Gas Corporation, [1998] 1 SCC 305 (Applicable law/Choice of Law in Arbitration).

Gourab has also appeared in numerous arbitration proceedings. Some international commercial arbitration proceedings in which he has participated in recent years are –

  1. Presently acting as a co-arbitrator, nominated by the ICC, in an international commercial arbitration.
  2. Presently acting as a sole arbitrator in an international commercial arbitration between a Qatar based party and an Indian Party, seated in New Delhi.
  3. Presently acting as a co-arbitrator, nominated by the claimant, in an international commercial arbitration.
  4. Presently acting as a sole arbitrator in a multi-jurisdictional LCIA arbitration seated in London.
  5. Expert Witness on issues relating to Indian law of damages before an Arbitral Tribunal seated in Singapore.
  6. Expert Witness on issues relating to Indian law before a Singapore Court.
  7. Recently concluded an international commercial arbitration as a sole arbitrator (appointed by the Supreme Court of India).
  8. Represented the Republic of India in Bilateral Investment Treaty arbitrations.
  9. Representing a South African PSU as the lead counsel in a multi-party arbitration concerning a dispute in relation to sale and purchase of shares.
  10. Represented a leading Chinese company as the lead counsel in an ICC arbitration concerning a dispute arising between the parties in relation to a contract for manufacturing.
  11. Representing a major Indian conglomerate as lead counsel in an international commercial arbitration in a dispute arising from a contract for the import and supply of coal.
  12. Representing a Norwegian company as lead counsel in an international commercial arbitration in relation to disputes arising out of contracts for exploring and producing hydrocarbons in India and overseas.
  13. Represented an Indian PSU as the lead counsel in an arbitration concerning a dispute arising between the parties under the Contract of Affreightment, where the PSU was the charterer.
  14. Represented an English company against an Indian textile manufacturer in respect of disputes arising out of a finance agreement.
  15. Represented an Indian oil company in a major international arbitration dispute pertaining to charter-hire of a drilling vessel.
  16. Represented a consortium of foreign companies against a public sector undertaking, in a construction dispute regarding the construction of New Delhi’s new underground metro rail.
  17. Instructed on behalf of an Indian firm against a multinational drilling company in a dispute arising out of an indemnity clause for customs duty liability.
  18. Instructed on behalf of the State Government of Andhra Pradesh to defend a claim for damages arising out of the termination of three power project contracts.
  19. Instructed as lead counsel along with English counsel and solicitors on behalf of a public sector insurance company in an arbitration pertaining to a multi-million dollar claim arising out of cyclone damage to an oil refinery. This arbitration involved the first ‘advance loss of profits’ claim to be adjudicated in relation to India.
  20. Represented an Indian company in a major arbitration dispute for non-payment of “Take or Pay” charges under a Gas Sale agreement.
  21. Represented an Indian company in a multi-million dollar arbitration dispute pertaining to an Engineering Procurement Contract for Power Generation and Distribution System and Integrated Balance Works.
  22. Represented a public sector undertaking in a series of arbitrations for non- payment of “Ship or Pay” charges.

Civil and commercial disputes arising out of contract form a significant component of Gourab’s practice. In addition to contractual disputes generally, Gourab has been instructed in quite a few cases arising out of contractual disputes and relating to the invocation of bank guarantees, letters of credit, tenders and termination of contracts.

Some instances of cases in this field that Gourab successfully argued before the Supreme Court of India are UMC Technology v. Food Corporation of India 2020 SCC Online SC 934, Food Corporation of India and Ors. vs. V.K. Traders and Ors. [2020] 4 SCC 60, Chowgule & Company Private Limited v Goa Foundation and Others  2020 SCC OnLine SC 103, BHEL v Tata Projects Ltd [2015] 5 SCC 682, Air India Cabin Crew Association and Ors v Union of India and Ors [2012] 1 SCC 619, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation v City Industrial Development Corporation, [2007] 7 SCC 39,Ojas Industries v Oudh Sugar Mills [2007] 4 SCC 723, Panchanan Dhara v Monmatha Nath Maity, [2006] 5 SCC 340, Food Corporation of India v Babulal Agrawal [2004] 2 SCC 712 and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v GTL Infrastructure Ltd. and Ors.[2016] 12 SCALE 1002.


Recently, Gourab has advised overseas clients on laws relating to information technology and data privacy and the compliance exercises to be carried out by them.

  1. Gourab regularly appears before the National Company Appellate Law Tribunal and National Company Law Tribunal. Recently he has appeared in Ishrat Ali v. Cosmos Cooperative Bank & Anr. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No 221 of 2018, decided on 12.03.2020, where a 5 Judge Bench of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal decided the issue of law of limitation re. insolvency proceedings.
  2. Gourab in Vishal Vijay Kalantri and Ors. v. DBM Geotechnics and Construction Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 139 of 2018 has successfully represented the Committee of Creditors.
  3. Gourab successfully represented the Appellant in Assam Chemical and Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. v. Deba Kumar Hazarika [2019] 215 CompCas 26 deciding on the issue of oppression and mismanagement.
  4. He has successfully represented the Resolution Professional in Renaissance Steel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Electrosteels Steel India Ltd. [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No 175 of 2018, decided on 10.08.2018], and also in Neeraj Singhal Bhushan Steel Ltd. & Ors. [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No 221 of 2018, decided on 10.08.2018].

Gourab currently represents insurance companies in a wide variety of claims, mostly before arbitral tribunals and before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (a specialized Tribunal set up for resolving consumer/product liability disputes). He is also routinely consulted on matters involving Indian insurance law and has advised on a matter pertaining to whether a port’s physical damage and business interruption claims pursuant to an unexpected weather event were payable by the reinsurers to the insurer under several reinsurance policies.

Gourab was lead counsel for insurers in a domestic arbitration concerning disputes arising out of damage due to a fire at a paper manufacturing facility. He is also currently representing a foreign insurance company in another dispute which pertains to the methodology of calculation of loss of profits under a ‘fire loss of profits’ policy.

Recently, Gourab has successfully impugned an arbitral award passed against an insurance major in Indo Rama Synthetics India Limited v Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. in FAO (OS) 156/2015 decided on 15.2.2019 before the Delhi High Court. A Special Leave Petition against the Delhi High Court judgment is presently pending before the Supreme Court of India where Gourab is appearing for the Respondent.


Gourab regularly appears before the Courts in intellectual property disputes. Gourab has represented, amongst others, Unilever, in a dispute pertaining to comparative advertising and malicious falsehood before the Delhi High Court Reckitt Benckiser v Hindustan Unilever (2008) 38 Patents & Trademark Cases 139. The judgment in M/s P.K. Overseas Private Limited v. M/s KRBL Limited FAO No. 317/2018 is presently awaited where Gourab has argued for the Appellant.

Gourab successfully represented Interdigital Technology Corporation, an American multi-national corporation, before the Delhi High Court against Xiaomi Corporation, in securing the first of its kind ad interim “anti-anti suit injunction” against the orders of the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court, China. The case can be found in Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors v. Xiaomi & Ors IA No. 8772 in CS (Comm) 295/2020 and was decided on 09.10.2020.


Over the past fifteen years, Gourab has argued a number of cases relating to labour and industrial employment including Ritu Bhatia v. Ministry of Civil Supplies, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution [2019] 3 SCC 422, State of Uttaranchal v Dinesh Kumar Sharma, [2007] 1 SCC 683; ANZ Grindlays Bank v Union of India, [2005] 12 SCC 738; and Bharat Heavy Electricals v B.K. Vijay [2006] 2 SCC 654.


Gourab has considerable experience in the oil and gas sector and has represented both private parties as well as public sector undertakings in disputes in the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts of India, specialised tribunals as also arbitral tribunals. He is consistently engaged by various public sector undertakings for arbitral proceedings that cover a wide range of oil and gas related issues including exploration, pricing, supply and transportation of oil as well as gas.

In particular, Gourab has represented leading companies in the field of oil and gas, including Pure E&P AS (formerly Rocksource ASA), GAIL India Ltd., Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL), Oil India Limited (OIL), Mahanagar Gas Ltd. (MGL), GAIL Gas Ltd. (GGL) as also the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG) on wide ranging issues like tariff fixation, transportation charges, Take or Pay, Ship or Pay, APM and non-APM price, and related issues of captive consumption under the Electricity Act, 2003. He has also represented several private companies dealing with energy sector in matters before the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court as well as the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL). In one of the leading cases decided by the Supreme Court of India, reported in (2016) 11 SCC 1, Gourab was instructed as the lead senior counsel for Essar Steel Ltd. in a dispute pertaining to price of Re-gasified Liquefied Natural Gas (RLNG).


Gourab recently represented the Petitioner, a leading pharmaceutical company, in Sanofi India Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [2019 SCC OnLine Del 7669], before the Delhi High Court, in a Writ Petition concerning ceiling pricing of pharmaceutical products.


Gourab has successfully represented the Indian securities market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India in a litigation before the Allahabad High Court challenging the regulations that have been issued by SEBI for the purpose of regulating the entry, licensing and business of stock exchanges throughout the territory of India in UP Stock Exchange Brokers’ Association v Security and Exchange Board of India 2014 [7] ADJ 548. He has also successfully represented SEBI in SEBI v Rakhi Trading and Others (2018) 13 SCC 753 where the Supreme Court has clarified the definition of market manipulation in the Futures and Options segment of the National Stock Exchange.


Gourab has a considerable amount of expertise in the fields of direct taxation and has extensively represented the Union of India as lead counsel in direct and indirect taxation litigation while Additional Solicitor General of India. Some judgments pertaining to taxation argued by Gourab in the Supreme Court include –

  1. Gourab is presently representing a hydro electricality generating unit against the province of Uttarakhand in its challenge against the tax levied against it as violative of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India.
  2. Gourab successfully represented a local body before the Supreme Court of India in its levy of statutory cess in Vasant Chemicals Limited v Managing Director, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others (2019) 4 SCC 592.
  3. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Classic Binding Industries, (2018) 9 SCC 753 [regarding exemptions and deductions from profits and gains]
  4. Commissioner of Customs v N.I. Systems, (2010) 256 E.L.T. 173 (As Additional Solicitor General of India).
  5. Liberty India v Commissioner of Income Tax, (2009) 9 SCC 328 (As Additional Solicitor General of India).
  6. Commissioner of Central Excise v Gujarat Narmada Fertilizer Corporation, (2009) 1 SCC 101 (As Additional Solicitor General of India)
  7. He was appointed by a leading international law firm as an expert to opine on a complicated issue pertaining to tax laws in India in a matter before the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court.
  • Member, SIAC Panel of Arbitrators.
  • Vice Chairman of the UNCITRAL National Coordination Committee for India (UNCCI); one of the only three UNCITRAL National Coordination Committees constituted world over under the mandate of the United Nations.
  • Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India at the Supreme Court (2009-2014): The Constitution of India provides for Law Officers at the Federal and Provincial levels of Government. At the Federal level, the Union of India is represented by the Attorney General for India, the Solicitor General for India and a team of eight Additional Solicitors General.
  •  Honorary Adjunct Professor at Jindal Global Law School. Taught a course on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Awards in India.
  • Vice-Chairman of the Permanent Court of Arbitration India Conference Committee.
  • Appointed/called upon by the PCA to exercise power as an Appointing Authority at the PCA.
  • Part of the sub-committee of experts on Investment treaties and Investment treaty arbitrations that assisted the Law Commission of India in its 260th report on India’s Model Bilateral Investment Treaty.
  • Contributed to the Law Commission’s 246th report on Amendment to the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
  • Part of the Attorney General’s Committee set up in 2010 to suggest changes to the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
  • The Government of India’s representative at the UNCITRAL Working Group on Arbitration in Vienna in October 2011.
  • Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand in the Supreme Court (2002-2007).
  • Each State/Province is represented by an Advocate-General. Gourab represented the State of Uttarakhand from 2002 to 2007, and represented the State of Haryana as its Additional Advocate General before the Supreme Court from 2007 to 2009.
  • Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana at the Supreme Court (2007-2009).
  • Member, National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), New Delhi (2004-2009)
  • NALSA is the apex body constituted to lay down policies for making legal services available under the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Its duties include framing effective schemes for legal services, disbursing funds and grants to State Legal Services Authorities and NGOs for implementing legal aid schemes and programmes. The Chief Justice of India is the Patron-in-chief of NALSA.
  • Delegate of the Supreme Court of India in the Indo Canadian Legal Forum Meet, 2001; in the Indo-US Legal Forum Meet, 2001 and in the Indo-British Legal Forum Meets, 2003 and 2008.

Barrister; M.A. Cantab (Law Tripos), 1st Class;

Bundy Scholar, Norah Hunter Dias Prize in law;

Magdalene College, Cambridge University;

Call to the Bar in 1990 (Lincoln’s Inn)

Practising before the Supreme Court and High Courts of India since 1989

Designated a Senior Advocate (equivalent of a Q.C. in England with similar restrictions) in December 2003.

Overseas Associate, Essex Court Chambers

  • Editor, ‘International Arbitration and the Rule of Law: Essays in Honour of Fali Nariman’, a PCA publication (2021).
  • Author, article on Third Party Funding in International Arbitration in India for International Arbitration and the Rule of Law: Essays in Honour of Mr. Fali Nariman, a Permanent Court of Arbitration publication.
  • Author of the India chapter of the Encyclopedia of International Commercial Litigation published by Wolters Kluwer (2020).
  • Author of the ‘India Investment Treaty Know-How’ chapter in the Global Arbitration Review in 2016 and 2017.
  • Author of ‘Halsbury’s Laws of India, Business Associations’.
  • Chapter on Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in India: Recent Developments, a Maharashtra National Law University publication (Upcoming).