Bombay High Court dismisses EuroChem appeal in ₹19,500-crore Tecnimont dispute

A division bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal by Russian fertiliser manufacturer EuroChem North-West-2 challenging a single judge’s refusal to freeze the Indian assets of Italian engineering major Tecnimont S.p.A. in a ₹19,500-crore foreign decree enforcement suit. [Limited Liability Company Eurochem v. Tecnimont SPA]

The bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande on October 29 upheld the June 8 order of the single-judge denying interim relief and rejected EuroChem’s stay plea.

The dispute stemmed from three June 2020 contracts for building a fertiliser complex in Russia’s Leningrad Region.

The contracts mandated London-seated International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration under English law. 

In 2022, European Union and United Kingdom sanctions hit EuroChem’s beneficial owner, Andrey Melnichenko.

Tecnimont and its Russian subsidiary, MT Russia, suspended work. EuroChem then terminated the contracts and joined ICC arbitration for three years.

In July 2025, EuroChem lost a performance bond case in London.

Subsequently, it invoked Article 248.1 of Russia’s Arbitrazh Procedural Code, which grants Russian commercial courts exclusive jurisdiction over sanction-related disputes, even overriding foreign arbitration agreements when sanctions obstruct access to justice. 

In December 2025, it obtained a 171.11-billion-rouble Moscow Commercial Court decree against Tecnimont and MT Russia. EuroChem pursued this suit despite ICC and English anti-suit injunctions.

EuroChem filed a recovery suit in Mumbai as Russia is a non-reciprocating territory seeking an immediate freeze on Tecnimont’s Indian assets.

It invoked sections 13 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) which triggers a mandatory presumption of jurisdiction, which is rebuttable only in trial.

The division bench rejected this plea and observed that courts can examine prima facie doubts over a foreign court’s competence under Section 13 CPC before trial. 

“Postponing the determination of question whether the foreign court is a court of competent jurisdiction to the stage of trial would cause huge prejudice to the judgment debtor who would have to accept an order of injunction/ restrain only on the presumption that the judgment of the foreign court has weightage of conclusivity,” the judge observed.

The bench held that the presumption of a foreign court’s competence can be rebutted at the interim stage. 

“We find fallacy in the argument of the appellant as accepting the submission would mean that in every case of foreign judgment placed before an Indian Court, where from a court of reciprocating or non-reciprocating territory, the grant of interim relief would automatically flow,” the judgment stated.

The bench also declined EuroChem’s request to stay the verdict.

Senior advocate Zal Andhyarujina with advocates Prateek Bagaria, Maithili Parikh, Jimisha Dalal, Nitansha Nema, Mihir Govande and Shrilakshmi Sankaranarayanan briefed by Singularity Legal appeared for Eurochem.

Senior advocate Vikram Nankani with advocates Alok Jain, Samarth Saxena, Ria Gard, Aditya Athreya and Mihir Beradia briefed by Quillon Partners appeared for Tecnimont with support from McDermott Will & Schulte.

The team was led by partners Milo Molfa, Alfonso Annibale De Marco, Jack Thorne and David Kiefer; supported by associates James McGlaughlin, Jonathan Robb, Alison Morris, William Merry and William Evans in London, Mariafiore Miniussi in Milan, Maxime Delabarre in Paris, and Maria Cristina Rosales del Prado and Ignacio Zabala Alonso in Washington DC.

[Read order]