Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court has appointed a former woman High Court Judge as sole arbitrator in a partnership dispute and, in the same judgment, observed that the under-representation of women and technical experts in court-made arbitrator appointments merits due attention. Justice D.N. Ray, by a judgment dated 9 October 2026, encouraged parties, counsel and arbitral institutions to widen the pool from which arbitrators are drawn.
The judgment was passed on Arbitration Petition No. 119 of 2026, filed by Shilpaben Shah and others against Jasmin Pravinchandra Shah, along with connected Arbitration Petition No. 123 of 2026. Since the issues were substantially identical, the Court treated the first petition as the lead petition and decided both together.
The petitioners’ case is that the late Sanjay Pravinchandra Shah and the respondent formed the partnership firm M/s. Corus Metal under a Partnership Deed dated 29.06.2020, each holding an equal 50% share. Clause 14 of the Deed provides for arbitration of all disputes relating to the firm. The firm owned GIDC land at Village Dholka, District Ahmedabad, which, according to the petitioners, the respondent agreed to sell on 01.01.2022 for ₹1,81,00,000 and then conveyed to M/s. Sachi Steel Solution Private Limited by a registered sale deed dated 27.08.2024, without remitting the deceased partner’s 50% share of the consideration.
The partner died on 04.12.2025, and the petitioners contended that the two-partner firm was dissolved by operation of law. They sought settlement of accounts and distribution of assets, including the deceased’s capital of ₹74,73,305 as shown in the audited balance sheet as on 31.03.2025, which the respondent declined. They invoked the arbitration clause by a notice dated 09.05.2026 under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and, as the respondent refused to concur with the proposed arbitrator, filed the petition under Section 11(5) of the Act.
The respondent opposed the petition on the ground of accord and satisfaction. The Court held that, in view of a catena of Supreme Court decisions, including SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754), the objection was unsustainable. It recorded that, at this stage, both parties agreed that a suitable arbitrator may be appointed by the Gujarat High Court Arbitration Centre.
Referring to Section 11(8) of the Act, the Court noted that the appointing court must have due regard to the qualifications agreed upon by the parties and to considerations likely to secure an independent and impartial arbitrator. It recalled that the Supreme Court has emphasised that panels of arbitrators ought to be “broadbased”, comprising not only judges and lawyers but also engineers and other professionals.
The Court then referred to the empirical study Arbitrator Appointments in Numbers by the Milon K. Banerji Centre for Arbitration Law, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad (October 2026). The study covers court-made appointments in cases registered in 2025 before the Supreme Court and the Delhi and Bombay High Courts, and 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% of appointments for which the professional background was recorded.
Without derogating from the primacy of competence, integrity and independence, the Court held that such under-representation merits due attention, and encouraged parties, counsel and arbitral institutions to widen the pool of arbitrators “so as to include duly qualified women and technical experts”.
Allowing the petition, the Court appointed Justice Mauna M. Bhatt, a former Judge of the Gujarat High Court, as sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes in accordance with the Arbitration Centre (Domestic and International), High Court of Gujarat Rules, 2021, which will also govern the parties. All pending connected applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.
Appearances: For the Petitioners: Mr. Aditya A. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Padmraj K. Jadeja, Advocate.
Case Title: Shilpaben Shah and Others v. Jasmin Pravinchandra Shah, R/Petn. under Arbitration Act No. 119 of 2026, with R/Petn. under Arbitration Act No. 123 of 2026
![Supreme Court Affirms Women's Right to Reproductive Choices as Central to Human Dignity [Read Order]](/secure/uploads/2023/08/lj_5007_Right_to_Reproductive.jpg)
