Competence, integrity and independence stay the first test, but the Gujarat High Court has encouraged parties, counsel and institutions to widen the arbitrator pool to include duly qualified women and technical experts, citing a NALSAR study that found women received under 30 per cent of court-made appointments and technical experts barely 3 per cent.
Ahmedabad: Of 2,283 court-made arbitrator appointments for which gender was recorded, only 29.97% went to women, and technical experts accounted for 3.10%. The Gujarat High Court took note of that empirical data while allowing two connected petitions under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in a partnership dispute, and encouraged parties, counsel and arbitral institutions to draw arbitrators from a broader base [Shilpaben Shah & Ors. v. Jasmin Pravinchandra Shah].
The oral judgment was delivered by Justice D.N. Ray on October 9, 2026, in Arbitration Petition No. 119 of 2026, together with Arbitration Petition No. 123 of 2026.
Under 30 per cent for women, 3.10 per cent for technical experts
The Court read Section 11(8) of the 1996 Act, which requires the appointing authority to have due regard to qualifications agreed by the parties and to considerations likely to secure an independent and impartial arbitrator. It relied on Voestalpine Schienen GmbH v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., where the Supreme Court said arbitrator panels should be broad-based and include engineers and other professionals, not only judges and lawyers. It then referred to the October 2026 study Arbitrator Appointments in Numbers by the Milon K. Banerji Centre for Arbitration Law, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, covering cases registered in 2025 before the Supreme Court and the Delhi and Bombay High Courts:
“The empirical study Arbitrator Appointments in Numbers, however, examining court-made appointments in cases registered in the year 2025 before select constitutional courts, records that, of 2,283 appointments for which gender was recorded, only 29.97% went to women, while technical experts accounted for a mere 3.10%.”
Justice Ray then held:
“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.”
The partnership behind the petitions
The firm at the centre of the case is M/s. Corus Metal, formed under a deed dated June 29, 2020 by the late Sanjay Pravinchandra Shah and the respondent, Jasmin Pravinchandra Shah, each holding a 50 per cent share. Clause 14 of the deed referred all firm disputes to arbitration.
According to the petitioners, his legal heirs, the respondent agreed to sell the firm’s GIDC land at Village Dholka, Ahmedabad district, for Rs 1.81 crore on January 1, 2022 and conveyed it to M/s. Sachi Steel Solution Private Limited by a sale deed of August 27, 2024, without remitting the deceased partner’s half share. After Sanjay Shah died on December 4, 2025, the heirs sought settlement of accounts, including his capital of Rs 74,73,305 shown in the audited balance sheet as on March 31, 2025. The respondent refused to agree to the proposed arbitrator, contending that the disputes were not arbitrable and that the deed ceased to operate on the partner’s death.
At the hearing, the respondent’s counsel opposed the petition on the ground of accord and satisfaction. The Court held the objection unsustainable in view of Supreme Court rulings including SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, after which both sides agreed to an appointment through the Gujarat High Court Arbitration Centre.
Who will decide the dispute
Allowing the petitions, the Court appointed Justice Mauna M. Bhatt, former Judge of the Gujarat High Court, as sole arbitrator to decide the disputes under the Arbitration Centre (Domestic and International), High Court of Gujarat Rules, 2021, which will govern both parties. The decision in the lead petition governs the connected petition as well. There was no order as to costs.
Why the judgment matters
Courts appoint a large share of arbitrators in India under Section 11, and those choices shape who gets experience and visibility in the field. By placing the NALSAR figures on judicial record and tying diversity to the Section 11(8) duty to secure suitable arbitrators, the High Court has given parties and institutions a clear signal to look beyond the usual pool, while keeping competence and independence as the first test.
Its call for technical experts also matters for construction, engineering and commercial disputes, where specialist knowledge can shorten proceedings and improve the quality of awards.
Case Title: Shilpaben Shah & Ors. v. Jasmin Pravinchandra Shah
Case No.: R/Petition under Arbitration Act No. 119 of 2026 with No. 123 of 2026
Bench: Justice D.N. Ray, High Court of Gujarat
Date of Judgment: October 9, 2026
Appearance: Advocate Aditya A. Gupta for the Petitioners; Advocate Padmraj K. Jadeja for the Respondent