Taking note of the dearth of women arbitrators and technical experts, the Gujarat High Court has suggested widening the pool from which arbitrators are drawn. The High Court was of the view that such underrepresentation merits due representation.

The High Court made such observations while dealing with two arbitration petitions.

Referring to the study carried out by Milon K. Banerji Centre for Arbitration Law, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, Arbitrator Appointments in Numbers (October 2026), the Single Bench of Justice D.N. Ray stated, “The study covers cases registered in 2025 before the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts of Delhi and Bombay, with data collected up to 30.06.2026; the figure of 3.10% relates to appointments for which the professional background of the arbitrator was recorded.”

“Without derogating from the primacy of competence, integrity and independence, this Court is of the considered view that such under-representation merits due attention. Parties, counsel and arbitral institutions are, therefore, encouraged to widen the pool from which arbitrators are drawn, so as to include duly qualified women and technical experts”, it added.

Advocate Aditya A Gupta represented the Petitioner while Advocate Padmraj K Jadeja represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The respondent and late Sanjay Pravinchandra Shah constituted a partnership firm, M/s. Corus Metal, under a Partnership Deed, each holding an equal 50% share. Clause 9 of the Deed made the partnership at will, while Clause 14 provided for reference of all disputes relating to the firm to arbitration. The firm owned Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) land. According to the petitioners, the respondent executed an agreement to sell, for a consideration of Rs 1,81,00,000, and thereafter conveyed the said land to M/s. Sachi Steel Solution Private Limited by a registered Sale Deed, without remitting the deceased’s 50% share of the consideration. The Petitioner claimed that after the demise of Sanjay Pravinchandra Shah, the two-partner firm thereupon stood dissolved by operation of law.

The petitioners sought settlement of accounts and distribution of assets, including the deceased’s capital of Rs 74,73,305 as reflected in the audited balance sheet, which the respondent declined. The petitioners therefore invoked Clause 14 by a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, proposing the name of the sole arbitrator. The respondent declined to concur with the proposed nomination and argued that the disputes were non-arbitrable. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the refusal of the respondent to refer the dispute to arbitration, the petitioners preferred the petition under Section 11(5) with the prayer to appoint the arbitrator.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained that Section 11(8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 enjoins the appointing Court to have due regard to the qualifications agreed upon by the parties and to such considerations as are likely to secure the appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator. “The Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized that panels of arbitrators ought to be “broadbased”, comprising not only judges and lawyers but also engineers and other professionals, so that the technical aspects of a dispute may be suitably resolved by utilizing their expertise”, it added.

The Bench considered that the underrepresentation of women arbitrators and technical experts and also suggested that the pool of arbitrator appointment be widened.

The Bench thus allowed the petition and appointed a sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties in accordance with the Arbitration Centre (Domestic and International), High Court of Gujarat Rules, 2021.

Cause Title: Shilpaben Shah & Ors. v. Jasmin Pravinchandra Shah (Neutral Citation:2026:GUJHC:68977)

Click here to read/download Order



Gujarat HCJustice DN Ray

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.