Foreign Judgment Does Not Guarantee Interim Relief: LLC Eurochem North-West-2 v Tecnimonth Spa

The Bombay High Court declined to grant interim relief, where a judgment of the Commercial Court of the City of Moscow, Russia was sought to be relied on as conclusive evidence of debt. The Court held that a foreign judgment does not automatically entitle a party to interim protection in India where the judgment does not meet the test of conclusiveness under Indian law.

Background

The dispute arose out of a series of onshore and offshore engineering contracts executed for the EuroChem Group's fertiliser project in Russia. Following the suspension of contractual performance in the wake of EU sanctions, Tecnimont commenced ICC arbitration proceedings in London in accordance with the parties' arbitration agreement. EuroChem participated in the arbitration and filed counterclaims. While those arbitral proceedings were pending, EuroChem instituted proceedings before the Moscow Commercial Court and obtained a judgment in its favour. EuroChem subsequently instituted a suit under §13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) before the Bombay High Court seeking recognition and enforcement of the Russian judgment, together with interim protection against Tecnimont's assets in India on the apprehension that they would be dissipated or transferred.

Tecnimont opposed the grant of interim relief on the grounds that the parties had agreed to resolve disputes through ICC arbitration and English courts, and the arbitral tribunal had issued anti-suit and anti-enforcement directions restraining EuroChem from pursuing other proceedings. Tecnimont contended that the Russian judgment was neither conclusive nor rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction.

The Bombay High Court

The Court declined to grant any interim relief on the basis that the Russian Judgment did not prima facie satisfy any of the tests of conclusiveness under §13 CPC as well as that there was a doubt in the jurisdictional competence of the Russian Court in entertaining the dispute.

The Court held:

• At the interlocutory stage, the Indian court must be prima facie satisfied that the foreign judgment is likely to satisfy §13 CPC before granting protective orders.
• Where parties have participated in parallel foreign-seated arbitration proceedings and such proceedings are pending, serious questions regarding the competence of the foreign court may arise, making it inappropriate to treat the foreign judgment as conclusive before trial.
• If there are allegations that the foreign proceedings violated principles of natural justice or were founded upon an incorrect assumption of jurisdiction, these constitute substantial objections and must be tested at trial.

The Judgment was appealed before a Division Bench, and orders were reserved on 30 July.

Conclusion

The decision, if upheld, is a step forward in Indian jurisprudence dealing with cross border disputes. It reinforces that Indian courts will closely scrutinise objections under §13 CPC and the competence of the foreign court before granting interim orders based solely on a foreign judgment.

On a global scale, the judgment is significant in the context of disputes arising from the Russian sanctions regime and the operation of Articles 248.1 and 248.2 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code (commonly referred to as the “Lugovoy Law”). These provisions confer jurisdiction on Russian courts over disputes involving sanctioned Russian parties and have been invoked to sidestep foreign jurisdiction and arbitration agreements. By declining to treat the Russian judgment as conclusive at the interim stage, the Bombay High Court joins a growing body of decisions internationally that have subjected judgments founded on these provisions to heightened judicial scrutiny.

Footnotes

^{*  Interim Application No 569/2026 in Commercial Suit No 6 of 2026, Bombay High Court.}

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.