Summary
- The Sikkim High Court has ruled that a judge who previously decided on interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not automatically disqualified from hearing a challenge under Section 34.
- Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan emphasized that recusal requires a real apprehension of bias, not merely prior involvement in the case.
- The court also stated that a revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC is not maintainable against an interlocutory order refusing recusal.
- This decision reinforces the principle that litigants cannot choose their judges based on previous rulings, impacting future arbitration proceedings significantly.
Join the discussion ā sign up to comment, upvote, and save articles.