Bombay HC Denies Interim Relief To Russian Company In ₹19,500 Crore Enforcement Suit Against Tecnimont

The Bombay High Court on Monday refused to grant interim protection to Russian fertiliser company EuroChem North West-2 in its suit seeking enforcement of a Moscow court judgment worth more than Rs 19,500 crore against Italian engineering company Tecnimont S.p.A.

The Court declined EuroChem's request to restrain Tecnimont from dealing with its assets in India pending adjudication of the suit.

Justice Gauri Godse held that, at the pre-trial stage, the competence of the Moscow Commercial Court to entertain EuroChem's claim was doubtful in view of the arbitration agreements between the parties and EuroChem's participation in ongoing international arbitration proceedings concerning the same dispute.

“In the present case, in view of the arbitration agreements between the parties and the plaintiff's participation in the international arbitration proceedings pertaining to the same claim arising out of the same dispute, the competence of the Russian court in entertaining the plaintiff's claim is doubtful. Therefore, the presumption under Section 14 of the CPC cannot be applied at the pre-trial stage,” Justice Godse observed.

EuroChem had approached the High Court seeking an Indian decree based on a judgment passed by the Commercial Court of the City of Moscow on December 5, 2025. It also sought an injunction restraining Tecnimont from removing or disposing of assets in India pending the suit.

The dispute arises from engineering contracts executed on June 1, 2020 between EuroChem, Tecnimont and Tecnimont's Russian subsidiary MTR for the implementation of the K2 fertiliser project in Russia.

According to EuroChem, the contracts were disrupted after sanctions-related developments in 2022 and were subsequently terminated. EuroChem instituted proceedings before the Moscow Commercial Court on September 1, 2025.

The Moscow court subsequently partly allowed EuroChem's claim and passed a judgment in its favour on December 5, 2025. EuroChem thereafter filed the present suit seeking enforcement of that judgment in India.

Before the Bombay High Court, EuroChem contended that the Russian judgment constituted conclusive evidence of Tecnimont's liability. It argued that there was a risk of Tecnimont transferring assets out of India and thereby defeating any decree that may ultimately be passed in its favour.

Tecnimont opposed the application. It contended that the dispute was already the subject matter of ICC arbitration proceedings and that the parties' agreements contained arbitration clauses providing for resolution of disputes through arbitration.

The High Court noted that EuroChem had participated in international arbitration proceedings concerning the same dispute. It also noted that the parties' agreements contained arbitration clauses and provided for English law as the governing law.

The court held that the Russian judgment could not be relied upon as conclusive evidence at the pre-trial stage.

“Therefore, at this pre-trial stage, the Russian judgment cannot be relied upon as conclusive evidence as contemplated under Section 13 of the CPC. The presumption regarding the competence of the court as contemplated under Section 14 of the CPC cannot be applied at this pre-trial stage, as from the record, prima facie, it appears that, in view of the arbitration agreements between the parties and the ongoing international arbitration, the competence of the Moscow commercial court in entertaining the plaintiff's claim is doubtful,” the court held.

EuroChem's apprehension regarding the possible transfer of assets was based, among other things, on an assignment agreement executed between Tecnimont and MTR.

Rejecting the contention as a basis for interim relief, the court observed:

“Merely saying that the defendant is likely to transfer its funds out of India to defeat the plaintiff's claim would not be sufficient to grant an injunction when there is no prima facie evidence to support the plaintiff's claim. In the present case, the apprehension is expressed by referring to an assignment agreement executed between the defendant and MTR. However, the Russian court has already granted an injunction in respect of the assignment agreement as pleaded by the plaintiff.”

The court also observed that Tecnimont had produced material to show that certain orders passed by English courts had not been placed on record by EuroChem.

“The defendant has produced sufficient material to show that the orders passed by the English court were not produced on record by the plaintiff,” the Court observed.

The court further observed that Tecnimont had produced material showing that the dispute between the parties was the subject matter of international arbitration proceedings and that English courts had issued anti-suit injunctions.

“The defendant has produced sufficient material to show that the dispute between the parties is the subject matter of the international arbitration proceedings, and that the English court has issued various orders imposing an anti-suit injunction. Hence, if any injunction is granted, the defendant is likely to suffer irreparable loss and prejudice. Hence, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff has not made out a case for an interim injunction,” the Court held.

Accordingly, the court dismissed EuroChem's interim application and declined to restrain Tecnimont from dealing with its assets in India pending trial of the suit.