Background and Procedural Posture
On 8 June 2026, the High Court of Bombay (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, Commercial Division) decided Interim Application No. 569 of 2026 in Commercial Suit No. 6 of 2026 between Limited Liability Company “EuroChem North‑West‑2” (Russia) and Tecnimont S.p.A. (Italy). EuroChem relies on a judgment of the Moscow Commercial Court dated 5 December 2025, later confirmed on appeal, and seeks an Indian decree for an equivalent sum exceeding RUB 171,115,220,555 (approximately EUR 1.75 billion). In the interim application, EuroChem requested an injunction restraining Tecnimont from removing or disposing of assets in India up to that value, alleging a risk of asset dissipation pending the suit.
Contractual Framework, Sanctions and Parallel Proceedings
The dispute arises out of a series of onshore and offshore engineering contracts dated 1 June 2020 for EuroChem’s K2 fertiliser project in Russia, concluded between EuroChem, Tecnimont and Tecnimont’s Russian subsidiary, MT Russia (MTR), which is 99% owned by Tecnimont. In May–June 2022, Tecnimont and MTR suspended performance citing EU sanctions; EuroChem terminated key contracts on 4 August 2022. On 1 September 2025, EuroChem filed a claim before the Moscow Commercial Court seeking recovery of unutilised advance payments, interest and damages totalling more than RUB 2.3 trillion (approximately EUR 23 billion). The contracts contain ICC arbitration clauses with the seat in London and English governing law, and EuroChem had already been participating in ICC arbitration, including by appointing an arbitrator and filing a counterclaim.
Russian Judgments and Foreign Anti‑Suit / Anti‑Enforcement Measures
On 27 November 2025 (operative part) and 5 December 2025 (full judgment), the Moscow Commercial Court partly allowed EuroChem’s claim and ordered Tecnimont and MTR jointly and severally to pay, inter alia, RUB 8,058,168,619.35 as unjust enrichment, RUB 3,834,694,789.96 as interest and RUB 159,222,357,146 as damages (overall approximately RUB 171 billion ≈ EUR 1.75 billion). The Moscow court relied on Article 248.1 of the Russian Commercial Procedure Code, holding that due to foreign sanctions and alleged obstacles to access to justice in foreign fora, the arbitration agreements were unenforceable and Russian courts had exclusive jurisdiction.
In parallel, the ICC tribunal issued several procedural orders (including Procedural Orders 18, 22, 23 and 25) directing EuroChem to withdraw the Russian proceedings and restraining enforcement of Russian court decisions as being in breach of the arbitration agreements. On 9 December 2025, the tribunal issued an anti‑enforcement and peremptory order against enforcing any Russian judgments relating to the dispute. Tecnimont obtained an anti‑suit injunction from the English Commercial Court (order of 21 November 2025), enforcing the tribunal’s orders under the English Arbitration Act; EuroChem’s appeal was dismissed by the English Court of Appeal. Conversely, on 10 December 2025, the St Petersburg court granted a permanent anti‑arbitration injunction against Tecnimont and MTR, prohibiting them from proceeding with the ICC arbitration.
Parties’ Main Submissions Before the Bombay High Court
EuroChem’s position was that the Russian judgment constitutes conclusive evidence of Tecnimont’s indebtedness under Section 13 of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). It relied on Section 14 CPC, which creates a rebuttable presumption that a certified foreign judgment was pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction. EuroChem argued that the Moscow court’s jurisdiction and findings under Article 248.1 Russian Procedure Code could not be re‑examined by the Indian court, and that none of the limited exceptions in Section 13(a)–(f) CPC applied. EuroChem further asserted a risk that Tecnimont would shift assets out of India, pointing to an Assignment Agreement of 8 October 2025 between MTR and Tecnimont allegedly designed to move assets from Russia to Italy.
Tecnimont challenged both the competence of the Moscow court and the procedural fairness of the Russian proceedings. It emphasized that the K2 contracts provide for ICC arbitration seated in London and for English law, with an express waiver of any other courts’ jurisdiction. In its view, Article 248.1 is inapplicable where parties have agreed to foreign courts or arbitration, and in any event its conditions (actual “obstacles to access to justice” due to sanctions) were not met, given EuroChem’s active participation in the ICC arbitration and in English court proceedings. Tecnimont also alleged serious breaches of natural justice in Moscow: EuroChem filed an amendment with more than 20,000 pages of materials 10–14 days before the final hearing; Tecnimont was denied adequate time to respond, an independent expert was refused, and the defendants were given about six minutes to argue a complex, high‑value dispute. Finally, Tecnimont accused EuroChem of suppressing material facts in its Indian pleadings by not disclosing the ICC tribunal’s orders, the English anti‑suit injunction and the failed appeal in England, and argued that a party lacking candour is not entitled to injunctive relief.
Court’s Analysis of Sections 13 and 14 CPC at the Interim Stage
The Bombay High Court restated that under Section 13 CPC a foreign judgment is conclusive as to any matter directly adjudicated upon between the same parties, subject to six specific exceptions (lack of jurisdiction, decision not on the merits, breach of natural justice, fraud, breach of Indian law or public policy). Section 14 CPC provides a rebuttable presumption that a certified copy of a foreign judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction. However, at a pre‑trial stage, where a defendant raises substantial objections on jurisdiction and on Section 13 exceptions, the Indian court must examine whether, prima facie, the foreign judgment can be treated as conclusive and whether the presumption of competence can operate.
The court stressed that, for the purpose of granting interim injunctive relief in a suit based solely on a foreign judgment, it must be prima facie satisfied that: (i) the foreign court was competent in the international sense (jurisdiction over subject matter and parties, as recognised in international law), and (ii) none of the Section 13 exceptions is clearly engaged. If the record indicates serious doubts on these points, the foreign judgment cannot serve as “absolute and conclusive proof” of the debt at the interim stage.
Doubts as to the Competence of the Moscow Court and Natural Justice Concerns
Applying these principles, the court focused on the existence of ICC arbitration clauses with seat in London, English governing law, and the fact that EuroChem had been participating in the ICC arbitration for three years on the same underlying dispute, including by filing a counterclaim. The court noted that EuroChem turned to the Moscow Commercial Court after an adverse order in related bond litigation in England, relying on Article 248.1 to invoke Russian exclusive jurisdiction despite the arbitration agreement.
The court reproduced Article 248.1 Russian Procedure Code and highlighted its opening carve‑out (“unless otherwise provided by an international treaty … or an agreement of the parties … referring disputes to foreign courts or international commercial arbitration”) and its requirement that the parties’ agreement be unenforceable due to restrictive measures creating obstacles to access to justice. In light of EuroChem’s ongoing and active participation in the London‑seated arbitration and in English court proceedings, the court held that, at least prima facie, it could not be said that the ICC arbitration agreement was rendered unenforceable for EuroChem by sanctions. Consequently, the competence of the Moscow Commercial Court remained doubtful, and the presumption under Section 14 CPC could not safely be applied at this stage.
The court also treated Tecnimont’s allegations concerning the conduct of the Moscow proceedings as serious. The very late filing of an extensive amendment and expert report, the lack of adequate time to respond, the refusal to appoint an independent expert, and the extremely limited argument time in a high‑value, complex matter raised a prima facie issue under Section 13(d) CPC (breach of principles of natural justice). Given these concerns, the Russian judgment could not be accepted as absolute evidence of EuroChem’s entitlement to recover the sums claimed, at least not for purposes of granting interim relief.
Discretionary Relief, Alleged Asset Dissipation and Outcome
On the equitable and discretionary aspects of injunctive relief, the court recalled that applications for injunctions require full and frank disclosure, especially where a party seeks to restrain disposition of assets in a money claim. It accepted that Tecnimont had produced material showing that EuroChem did not place the English orders and ICC tribunal’s anti‑suit and anti‑enforcement orders on record in India, despite their direct relevance for jurisdiction and the status of the foreign proceedings. The court considered this conduct relevant in assessing whether EuroChem should benefit from discretionary injunctive relief.
With regard to the alleged risk of asset dissipation, the court found that EuroChem mainly relied on the Assignment Agreement of 8 October 2025 between MTR and Tecnimont as evidence of a plan to move assets out of Russia, but that the Moscow court had already granted an injunction restraining Tecnimont from exercising rights under that agreement. Beyond this, there was no concrete material indicating that Tecnimont was likely to remove or dispose of assets in India with the intent to defeat a potential Indian decree. The court concluded that, in the absence of a strong prima facie case based on a conclusive foreign judgment, the mere size of the Russian claim and EuroChem’s apprehensions were insufficient to justify a freezing‑type injunction over Tecnimont’s Indian assets.
In its overall assessment, the court held that EuroChem had not established a prima facie case, irreparable harm, or a balance of convenience in its favour. The defendant, by contrast, had shown that the underlying dispute is already the subject of an international arbitration, and that English courts and the ICC tribunal had issued various anti‑suit and anti‑enforcement orders. The court considered that an injunction would risk prejudice to Tecnimont, including in relation to those foreign orders. Accordingly, the interim application for an injunction was dismissed, leaving the main suit based on the Russian judgment to be determined after trial, including full examination of the issues under Sections 13 and 14 CPC.