The Gujarat High Court has encouraged courts, lawyers and arbitral institutions to broaden the pool of arbitrators by including more qualified women and technical professionals, observing that their representation in arbitration appointments remains considerably low.
Justice D.N. Ray highlighted the need for greater diversity in arbitrator appointments while emphasising that competence, integrity and independence must remain the primary considerations.
Background
The dispute arose from a partnership firm, M/s. Corus Metal, constituted under a partnership deed dated June 29, 2020, between late Sanjay Pravinchandra Shah and Jasmin Pravinchandra Shah, with each holding an equal 50% share.
According to the petitioners, the respondent subsequently entered into an agreement to sell the firm's industrial land at Dholka, Ahmedabad, for ₹1.81 crore and executed a registered sale deed in favour of Sachi Steel Solution Private Limited on August 27, 2024. They alleged that the deceased partner's 50% share of the sale consideration had not been paid.
Following Sanjay Shah's death on December 4, 2025, the petitioners sought settlement of the firm's accounts and distribution of its assets, including the deceased partner's capital of ₹74,73,305. When the respondent declined their request to appoint a sole arbitrator, the petitioners approached the High Court under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The respondent opposed the petitions, raising objections including accord and satisfaction and disputing the arbitrability of the issues.
While considering the appointment, the Court referred to Section 11(8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which requires the appointing authority to consider the qualifications agreed upon by the parties and ensure that the arbitrator is independent and impartial.
Justice Ray also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Voestalpine Schienen GmbH v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., which emphasised the importance of maintaining broad-based panels of arbitrators, including engineers and other professionals alongside judges and lawyers.
The Court highlighted findings from an October 2026 study by the Milon K. Banerji Centre for Arbitration Law at NALSAR University of Law. The study found that women received only 29.97% of 2,283 arbitrator appointments for which gender was recorded, while technical experts accounted for just 3.10%.
Expressing concern over this imbalance, the Court observed:
"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 Court further noted that technical professionals can bring specialised knowledge to arbitration proceedings, particularly where disputes involve complex technical issues.
Both parties eventually agreed that a suitable arbitrator could be appointed through the Gujarat High Court Arbitration Centre. Accordingly, Justice D.N. Ray allowed the petitions and appointed former Gujarat High Court judge Justice Mauna M. Bhatt as the sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes.
The proceedings will be governed by the Arbitration Centre (Domestic and International), High Court of Gujarat Rules, 2021. The Registry was directed to communicate the appointment order to the arbitrator forthwith.
The connected applications, if any, were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.
