The Gujarat High Court has urged parties, lawyers and arbitral institutions to widen the pool of arbitrators to include more qualified women and technical experts, flagging their underrepresentation in court-appointed arbitrations.
The court cited an October 2026 NALSAR study, which found that women accounted for only 29.97% of appointments for which gender was recorded, while technical experts made up just 3.10% of appointments for which professional backgrounds were recorded
A Single Bench of Justice D.N. Ray observed that the underrepresentation deserved attention, while stressing that competence, integrity and independence must remain paramount.
“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 suggestion came while hearing arbitration petitions arising from a partnership dispute between Shilpaben Shah and others and Jasmin Pravinchandra Shah following the death of one of the partners, Sanjay Pravinchandra Shah. His legal heirs sought settlement of the firm's accounts and invoked the arbitration clause in its partnership deed after alleging that the surviving partner had transferred the firm's land without remitting Sanjay's 50% share of the sale consideration.
The surviving partner opposed the petitions, contending that the disputes were not arbitrable and that the partnership deed had ceased to operate following Sanjay's death. He also raised an objection on the ground of accord and satisfaction.
The court rejected the objection of accord and satisfaction as unsustainable, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning. It then referred to Section 11(8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the Supreme Court's decision in Voestalpine Schienen GmbH v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., which called for broader arbitrator panels including technical experts.
Allowing the petitions, the court appointed former Gujarat High Court Judge Justice Mauna M. Bhatt as the sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes. The court also disposed of pending connected applications without an order as to costs.
For Petitioners (Shilpaben Shah & Ors.): Advocate Aditya A. Gupta.
For Respondent (Jasmin Pravinchandra Shah): Advocate Padmraj K. Jadeja.