GANGTOK, SEPT 3: The Sikkim High Court has rejected a revision petition filed by the State Government seeking the recusal of the Presiding Judge of the Commercial Court at Mangan from hearing an arbitration-related appeal involving hotelier Nimmi Oberoi.
Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, in an order dated September 2, 2026, held that the State’s plea under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not maintainable, as the impugned order refusing recusal was interlocutory in nature and its reversal would not have finally disposed of the proceedings.
The dispute relates to an arbitration concerning leased premises. The State had argued that the Commercial Court judge should not hear its Section 34 appeal against an arbitral award because the same judge had earlier dealt with a Section 9 application in 2021 and had expressed findings on the merits.
Rejecting the plea, the High Court observed that a judge who had earlier decided a Section 9 application “does not have to automatically recuse” from subsequently hearing a Section 34 appeal arising from the same arbitration.
The Court held that recusal could not be sought merely because the judge had earlier taken a particular view. According to the order, the State would have to demonstrate “a real and reasonable apprehension of bias.”
Justice Pradhan further noted that Section 9 proceedings concerning interim and protective measures and Section 34 proceedings challenging an arbitral award involve different legal inquiries.
The High Court also examined the Commercial Court’s earlier order of May 31, 2021, and found that the judge had been conscious of the limited scope of the Section 9 proceedings. The Court noted that the judge had examined the contractual clauses “for the limited purpose of deciding the present petition” and had expressed only a “prima facie” opinion.
“I am, therefore, unable to agree with the learned Additional Advocate General that merely because the learned Judge reflected his prima facie opinion on the clauses of the agreement while deciding the application under Section 9, he would be biased against the State of Sikkim while deciding an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act,” the order stated.
The High Court also cautioned that allowing recusal merely on the ground that a judge had earlier decided an issue one way or the other could enable litigants to seek a judge of their choice.
“It would lead to the party choosing their Judge which would not be proper for administration of justice,” Justice Pradhan observed.
The revision petition, CRP No. 6 of 2026, State of Sikkim vs. Nimmi Oberoi, was accordingly rejected, with the Court directing that the parties bear their own costs.
अनलाइन् खबर पत्रिका तथ्य जाँच र आचारसंहिता प्रतिवेदन:
यो सामग्री हाम्रा सम्पादक टोलीद्वारा तथ्य प्रमाणीकरण र प्रेस काउन्सिल अफ इन्डिया आचारसंहिता बमोजिम प्रकाशित गरिएको हो।
