Sikkim High Court
Swadhi Health Management Llp And Ano vs State Of Sikkim And Ors on 28 October, 2025
Author: Bhaskar Raj Pradhan
Bench: Bhaskar Raj Pradhan
COURT NO.1
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
Record of Proceedings
WA. No. 04/2025
SWADHI HEALTH MANAGEMENT LLP AND ANR. APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
STATE OF SIKKIM AND ORS. RESPONDENT (S)
For Appellants : Mr. Harish Gaur, Ms. Namrata Mohapatra and Mr.
Bhusan Nepal, Advocates.
For Respondents : Mr. Thinlay Dorjee Bhutia, Government Advocate
with Ms. Pema Bhutia, Asst. Govt. Advocate.
Date: 28/10/2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE
...
JUDGMENT :
(per the Hon'ble, the Chief Justice)
The instant Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal arises in respect of a
judgment and order dated 29th August, 2025, passed by a learned Single Judge
in WP. (C) No. 04 of 2023. By the impugned judgment and order, the First Court
disposed of the matter in the following manner:-
"........
11. From the foregoing discussions it emanates that factual aspects
are in dispute. The claims on the merits of the dispute in my
considered view are to be addressed by Arbitration, as admittedly
such clause finds place in the documents referred to hereinabove.
The question framed by this Court is thus soundly answered.
12. Consequently, this Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to
the Petitioners to take recourse to the remedy of Arbitration."
Before us the learned Advocate representing the appellant submits that the
learned Single Judge had misdirected herself by holding that the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Gunwant Kaur and Ors. Vs.
Municipal Committee, Bhatinda and Ors. reported at AIR 1970 SC 802
COURT NO.1
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
Record of Proceedings
(Page 53) was not applicable by stating that the facts therein are distinguishable
from the case before her. We requested the learned Advocate for the appellant to
place the relevant paragraph which he intended to rely upon in order to submit
that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was factually akin to the case
which is now before this Court.
In this regard, he placed paragraph 14 of the said judgment. We have
perused the paragraph 14 of the judgment and we have also read the Hon'ble
Surpreme Court's judgment rendered in Smt. Gunwant Kaur case in its
entirety. We have no hesitation to hold that the matter before the Hon'ble
Supreme is fully distinguishable on facts as well as law from the case before us.
There was no existence of any arbitration clause which governed the parties in
Smt. Gunwant Kaur's case, whereas it is undisputed that there exists an
arbitration clause which governs the parties before us. That apart and in any
event, in Gunwant Kaur's case, the High Court had proceeded to dismiss the
writ petition in limine where as in the facts of this case, the learned Single Judge
has delivered an exhaustive judgment running into 19 pages while giving her
reasons as to why the writ Court was loathed to entertain the writ petition on
merit while giving liberty to the writ petitioners to take recourse to the remedy of
the arbitration.
While the extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is broad and expansive and technically untouched by fetters
provided by the statutory laws, it should be extremely circumspect in interfering
in a contractual matter where the parties are governed by a mutually agreed
arbitration clause, especially in the absence of mala fides. This has been
reiterated time and again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the plethora of
decisions; one such being the case of Bhaven Construction v. Executive
Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd., reported at (2022) 1 SCC
75.
COURT NO.1
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
Record of Proceedings
In an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, interference is usually warranted
when palpable infirmities of reasoning or perversities are noticed on a plain
reading of the impugning judgment and order. In the facts of the instant case, on
a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, we do not notice any
palpable infirmity or perversity which would warrant an interference by this Court
of Appeal. The judgment is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons.
The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and stands accordingly
dismissed.
(Bhaskar Raj Pradhan) (Biswanath Somadder)
Judge Chief Justice
jk/bp/ami
