Limited Liability Company EuroChem North-West-2 v Tecnimont S.P.A. 2026:BHC-OS:12539
Bombay High Court refuses asset injunction on Russian judgment amid London-seated ICC arbitration
The Bombay High Court (“BHC”) refused to grant an interim injunctionA temporary court order granted before final judgment, usually to preserve assets, rights, or the status quo while the case is pending restraining Tecnimont S.p.A. from dealing with assets in India, even though Limited Liability Company Eurochem North-West-2 relied on a Russian court judgment for a claim exceeding Indian rupees 19,500.
The case, Limited Liability Company Eurochem North-West-2 v Tecnimont S.p.A., arose from engineering contracts for the K2 fertiliser project in Russia. Eurochem sued in India under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 sets out when a foreign judgment is not conclusive in India, including lack of competent jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, fraud, or conflict with Indian law/public policy. (“CPC”), relying on a 5 December 2025 judgment of the Commercial Court of the City of Moscow as conclusive evidence of Tecnimont’s debt. It sought an Indian decree and interim protection over Tecnimont’s Indian assets up to approximately Russian roubles 171.1 billion.
The relevant contracts contained an arbitration clause providing for International Chamber of Commerce arbitration seated in London, with English law governing the contracts. Tecnimont argued that Eurochem had participated in the ICC arbitration for years, appointed an arbitrator, filed counterclaims, and only later invoked Russian court jurisdiction under Article 248.1Article 248.1 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedural Code is a sanctions-related provision invoked to assert Russian court jurisdiction despite foreign court or arbitration agreements, where access to the agreed foreign forum is said to be obstructed. of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedural Code.
Eurochem’s case was that the Moscow judgment should be treated as a foreign judgment capable of supporting an Indian money claim. Relying on Alcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v Celem S.A., it argued that a foreign judgment that is final and conclusive cannot be re-opened on facts or law except on the limited grounds in Section 13 CPC. It also relied on Section 14 CPCSection 14 CPC creates a rebuttable presumption that a certified foreign judgment was pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction unless the record or evidence shows otherwise. to say that the Moscow court should be presumed competent, and that any Indian re-examination of the Moscow court’s jurisdictional findings would amount to an impermissible appeal from the Russian judgment.
Tecnimont answered that the Moscow judgment could not be treated as conclusive at the interim stage because the parties had chosen ICC arbitration in London and excluded other courts. It relied on R. Viswanathan v Rukn-ul-Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid for the proposition that, for Indian recognition purposes, a foreign court must be competent in the international-law sense, not merely under its own domestic law. Tecnimont also invoked the line of English and Hong Kong anti-suit/anti-enforcement authorities addressing Russian proceedings brought despite foreign forum or arbitration agreements, including Google LLC v NAO Tsargrad Media, Barclays Bank PLC v VEB.RF, and Bank A v Bank B. Its point was that Article 248.1 does not automatically defeat a foreign arbitration agreement where the party invoking Russian jurisdiction had access to the agreed arbitral forum.
Tecnimont also argued that Eurochem had suppressed material facts about the ICC arbitration and related English court orders. That submission drew support from Amar Singh v Union of India, where the Supreme Court emphasised candour and full disclosure when a party seeks discretionary relief. On Tecnimont’s case, Eurochem’s failure to put the arbitration and English anti-suit context squarely before the Indian court was itself a reason to refuse interim protection.
Justice Gauri Godse accepted the core of Tecnimont’s objection at the interim stage. The court held that Eurochem could not obtain interim asset restraint merely by producing the Russian judgment where serious Section 13 CPC objections had been raised. The Section 14 CPC presumption was rebuttable, and the arbitration agreement, the pending London-seated ICC arbitration, the English court orders, and the natural justice objections meant the Moscow court’s competence remained doubtful.
It appears that the issue in the present dispute was strongly influenced by the interaction between Sections 13 and 14 CPC. A certified foreign judgment carries a rebuttable jurisdictional presumption, but where the record raises serious Section 13 objections, the judgment may not justify interim relief before trial. Here, the London-seated ICC arbitration agreement and Eurochem’s participation in that arbitration made the Moscow court’s competence “doubtful,” so the Russian judgment could not be used as “absolute and conclusive proof” at the interim stage.
The Court also found that Eurochem had not satisfied the ordinary injunction requirements. The record did not show a sufficient prima facie case, irreparable loss, or balance of convenience in Eurochem’s favour. Tecnimont had shown enough to make the conclusiveness of the Russian judgment a trial issue.