Court Rules That Prior Adjudication on Interim Relief Under Arbitration Act Does Not Automatically Disqualify Judge from Hearing Appeal; Revisional Jurisdiction Not Applicable for Interlocutory Orders
Gangtok, September 2, 2026 — The Sikkim High Court in a recent ruling clarified crucial principles concerning judicial recusal and the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), in the case titled State of Sikkim v. Nimmi Oberoi. The petition by the State of Sikkim sought to challenge an order refusing the recusal of the presiding judge in an arbitration appeal, contending that the judge’s earlier decision on an interim application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 created a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The background of the case involves a lease dispute where the respondent, Nimmi Oberoi, had secured an injunction restraining the State from disturbing possession of leased premises. The same judge who passed the injunction order was later assigned the hearing of the appeal challenging the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The State of Sikkim argued that the judge’s prior ruling on the interim relief was on the merits and thus the judge should recuse to ensure impartiality.
Rejecting this contention, Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan held that a judge is not automatically disqualified from hearing an appeal under Section 34 merely because he had previously ruled on a Section 9 application arising from the same arbitration dispute. The Court underscored that recusal is only warranted when a party demonstrates a real and reasonable apprehension of bias and not on mere allegations or dissatisfaction with earlier rulings.
The Court also examined the scope of Section 115 CPC, which allows High Courts to revise orders of subordinate courts only in cases where there is jurisdictional error or gross irregularity. It was held that interlocutory orders such as refusal to recuse do not dispose of the suit or proceedings and therefore, are not amenable to revision under Section 115. The judgment referred to authoritative precedents including DLF Housing & Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sarup Singh (1972) and Tek Singh vs. Shashi Verma (2019) to reiterate that revisional powers cannot be exercised to correct mere errors of law or fact in interlocutory orders.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized the distinction between applications under Section 9 (interim measures) and appeals under Section 34 (challenge to arbitral award) of the Arbitration Act. The inquiries under these provisions differ significantly, and a prima facie opinion expressed by the judge on an interim application does not translate into bias on the merits of the arbitral award.
This ruling sends a clear message that litigants cannot manipulate judicial assignments by seeking recusal on tenuous grounds, as it would undermine the administration of justice and judicial independence. The State of Sikkim’s revision petition was accordingly dismissed, with parties directed to bear their own costs.
This judgment reinforces judicial ethics regarding recusal, clarifies the limited ambit of revisional jurisdiction against interlocutory orders, and delineates the procedural framework for arbitration-related judicial interventions in Sikkim.
Bottom Line:
Recusal of a presiding judge is not automatic merely because the judge had earlier adjudicated on an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, arising from the same dispute. A party must demonstrate a real and reasonable apprehension of bias for recusal.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 9, Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908
State of Sikkim v. Nimmi Oberoi, (Sikkim) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2973584
