Judge Who Passed Earlier Interim Order Not Barred From Deciding Challenge To Arbitral Award: Sikkim High Court

The Sikkim High Court has held that a judge who earlier decided an application for interim protection in an arbitration dispute does not have to automatically recuse from hearing a subsequent challenge to the arbitral award arising from the same arbitration.

Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan observed that automatic recusal would not be required unless the State of Sikkim could demonstrate a real and reasonable apprehension of bias. Allowing such a recusal, according to the court, would be akin to allowing parties to choose their judges.

"I am also of the considered view that the learned Judge who decided the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act does not have to automatically recuse from subsequently hearing the appeal under section 34 arising from the same arbitration unless the State of Sikkim is able to demonstrate a real and reasonable apprehension of bias. If an application for recusal is permitted on the mere asking on the ground that the learned Judge had decided one way or the other earlier on an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, it would lead to the party choosing their Judge which would not be proper for administration of justice"

The ruling came in a revision petition filed by the State seeking transfer of Commercial Arbitration Case No. 1 of 2026 from the Commercial Court at Mangan to another district.

The underlying dispute concerns leased premises. On May 15, 2021, an application under Section 9(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed before the Commercial Court at East Sikkim at Gangtok, seeking interim relief of injunction.

On May 31, 2021, the commercial court restrained the State from disturbing possession and enjoyment of the leased premises until commencement of the arbitration proceedings.

The State challenged the interim order before the Sikkim High Court and initially succeeded.

Oberoi, however, approached the Supreme Court, which allowed her appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment and appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute.

The arbitration culminated in an award dated December 5, 2022 against the State, which challenged it under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the Commercial Court at Gangtok.

On October 28, 2025, the Gangtok Commercial Court judge recused himself because Oberoi's counsel was his spouse.

Consequently, through an administrative order dated February 25, 2026, the High Court transferred the proceedings to the Commercial Court at Mangan.

The State sought recusal of the Mangan Commercial Court judge as well, since he was the same judicial officer who had passed the May 31, 2021 interim injunction.

It contended that the judge had already considered the merits and made findings against the State in the earlier Section 9 proceedings.

On April 13, 2026, the Commercial Court at Mangan rejected the request, holding that its earlier interim ruling in the dispute was not by itself, a ground for recusal.

The State then approached the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of the proceedings to another district.

Oberoi opposed the revision, arguing that the refusal to recuse was an interlocutory order which could not be challenged under Section 115 CPC.

She further contended that deciding the earlier Section 9 application did not require the judge to recuse and that the State had failed to demonstrate any inherent bias.

Agreeing with Oberoi, the High Court held that its revisional powers could not be exercised since allowing recusal would only change the judge or court without finally disposing of the proceedings.

On the allegation of bias, the Court stressed that a Section 9 application seeking interim and protective measures and a Section 34 challenge to an arbitral award involve “different inquiries.”

Therefore, there is no automatic bar on the same judge subsequently hearing the Section 34 challenge.

Examining the May 31, 2021 order, the Court found that the judge had considered the relevant clauses of the agreement only “for the limited purpose of deciding the present petition” and had expressed a “prima facie” opinion.

It therefore rejected the State's claim of bias based merely on the judge's earlier preliminary views.

It further held that recusal may be warranted if the earlier order decided a central issue or expressed strong views indicating bias.

It observed, "It may also be relevant to examine whether the learned Judge while deciding the application under Section 9 finally adjudicated an issue directly central to an appeal under Section 34 and made findings that effectively amounted to conclusion on the validity or legality of the arbitral award or express strong views on the merit of the case which lays down a strong foundation of the charge of bias against him."

The High Court accordingly rejected the State's revision petition and directed the parties to bear their own costs.

For Petitioner (State of Sikkim): Advocate Zangpo Sherpa, Additional Advocate General.

For Respondent (Nimmi Oberoi): Advocates Debarshi Dutta, K.D. Bhutia.