Bombay High Court refuses to freeze Tecnimont assets in ₹19,500 crore Eurochem suit

The Bombay High Court on Monday declined to freeze the Indian assets of Italian engineering company Tecnimont S.p.A. in a ₹19,500‑crore enforcement action filed by Russian fertiliser producer Eurochem North‑West‑2 [Limited Liability Company Eurochem v. Tecnimont SPA].Eurochem, in a commercial suit, urged the Court to pass a decree identical to a December 2025 judgment of the Moscow Commercial Court in its favour. However, Justice Gauri Godse at interim stage declined to accept the Russian court decree as absolute and conclusive proof or evidence to support the Eurochem's money claim."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," the Court said..In December 2025, a Russian court had held Tecnimont and its Russian subsidiary MT Russia (MTR) jointly and severally liable in disputes connected to K2 Project, the Eurochem Group’s plan to construct a fertiliser complex in Russia.Eurochem then moved the Bombay High Court with a suit seeking a freezing order to restraint Tecnimont from removing or dealing with assets in India up to about RUB 171.1 billion (approx. ₹224 billion), citing a risk that funds would be shifted out of the country..Tecnimont opposed the plea, stressing that the contracts between the parties provided for ICC arbitration seated in London, governed by English law, and that Eurochem had actively participated in those arbitral proceedings for three years, including by filing counterclaims. It pointed to anti‑suit and anti‑enforcement orders from the ICC tribunal and English courts restraining Eurochem from pursuing and enforcing Russian proceedings. The company also alleged serious breaches of natural justice in Moscow. Further, it accused Eurochem of suppressing these foreign anti‑suit orders before the Bombay High Court. .Justice Godse dismissed the interim application holding that Eurochem had failed to establish a prima facie case, irreparable injury or that the balance of convenience lay in its favour. It also observed that a bare apprehension of asset transfer was not enough in a money suit without a strong prima facie case. “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," the Court said.The Court noted that Tecnimont had placed sufficient material to show that orders passed by English courts were not disclosed by Eurochem. Those orders showed that Eurochem had participated in ICC arbitration in the UK and filed a counterclaim on substantially the same claim as the Moscow proceedings, and that English courts had issued various anti‑suit injunctions“Therefore, even on the ground of the plaintiff’s conduct, I see no reason to grant discretionary relief of injunction,” Justice Godse said..Senior Advocate Zal Andhyarujina with advocates Prateek Bagaria, Maithili Parikh, Natasha Kavalakka, Lakshay Arora, Priyanshi Vakharia and Khusboo Sharma briefed by Singularity Legal appeared for Eurochem. Senior Advocate Vikram S Nankani with advocates Alok Jain, Samarth Saxena, Ria Garg and Mihir Beradia briefed by Quillon Partners along with disputes team of global law firm McDermott Will & Schulte led by partners Milo Molfa, Alfonso Annibale De Marco, Jack Thorne and David Kiefer appeared for Tecnimont. [Read Order]