Order Refusing Recusal Of Judge Is Interlocutory, Not Revisable Under Section 115 CPC: Sikkim High Court
The Sikkim High Court has held that an order refusing a Judge's recusal is interlocutory in nature and cannot be challenged by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The Court observed that even if the recusal request were allowed, it would merely result in a change of the Presiding Officer and would not finally dispose of the suit or proceedings.
Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan remarked that: “The impugned order of refusal to recuse from the case even if it was decided in favour of the State of Sikkim would not have disposed of the suit or other proceedings. All that it would result in would be a change of the Presiding Officer or the Court.”
Background:
The dispute arose between the State of Sikkim and Nimmi Oberoi concerning leased premises. Oberoi had earlier obtained interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, from the Commercial Court. After the arbitral award went against the State, it filed a Section 34 challenge.
The State sought recusal of the Judge hearing the challenge on the ground that he had earlier dealt with the Section 9 proceedings and had expressed views on the merits. The Commercial Court rejected the plea, leading the State to approach the High Court under Section 115 CPC.
The Sikkim High Court held that the revision petition under Section 115 CPC was not maintainable as the impugned order refusing recusal was interlocutory in nature. The Court observed that even if the recusal application had been allowed, it would only have resulted in a change of the Presiding Officer and would not have finally disposed of the proceedings.
On the issue of recusal, the Court held that a Judge who had earlier decided a Section 9 application does not automatically have to recuse from a subsequent Section 34 challenge arising from the same arbitration. Recusal would be warranted only where the party demonstrates a “real and reasonable apprehension of bias.”
The Court noted that Section 9 proceedings concern interim and protective measures, whereas Section 34 proceedings involve a challenge to the arbitral award on limited statutory grounds. Therefore, merely deciding the earlier Section 9 application could not by itself establish bias.
The Court further observed that the earlier Judge had only expressed a prima facie opinion on the contractual clauses for the limited purpose of deciding the Section 9 application. Such an opinion did not demonstrate that the Judge had prejudged the Section 34 proceedings or was biased against the State.
Accordingly, the High Court rejected the State's revision petition and upheld the refusal to recuse.
Case Name: State of Sikkim v/s Nimmi Oberoi
Case No.: CRP No.6 of 2026
Date of Decision: 03.09.2026