The Bombay High Court recently decided against freezing the Indian assets of Italian firm Tecnimont S.p.A. amidst a substantial financial claim by Russian fertilizer company, Eurochem North-West-2. The case, identified as Limited Liability Company Eurochem v. Tecnimont SPA, involves a ₹19,500 crore enforcement action.
Background of the Case
Eurochem had approached the Bombay High Court, seeking a decree akin to a December 2025 judgment from the Moscow Commercial Court, which ruled in Eurochem’s favor. However, Justice Gauri Godse, presiding over the interim stage, was reluctant to accept the Russian decree as definitive evidence of Eurochem’s financial claim.
In her evaluation, Justice Godse expressed skepticism regarding the Russian court’s jurisdiction, especially given the existing arbitration agreements and Eurochem’s active participation in international arbitration concerning the same dispute. The court highlighted that the presumption under Section 14 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) could not be applied before a trial when doubts about jurisdiction exist.
Details of the Dispute
The dispute traces back to the K2 Project, an initiative by the Eurochem Group to build a fertilizer plant in Russia. The Russian court had previously held Tecnimont and its subsidiary, MT Russia (MTR), jointly liable. Following this, Eurochem sought a freezing order from the Bombay High Court to prevent Tecnimont from dealing with its Indian assets, citing potential financial transfers out of the country.
Tecnimont contested this plea, emphasizing existing agreements for International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration in London under English law, in which Eurochem had participated for three years. The firm also referenced orders from ICC and English courts, which restrained Eurochem from pursuing Russian legal proceedings.
More Read
Court’s Judgment
Justice Godse ultimately dismissed Eurochem’s interim application. The court determined that Eurochem did not demonstrate a prima facie case, irreparable harm, or a favorable balance of convenience. The mere speculation of potential asset transfers was insufficient to warrant an injunction in a monetary dispute without substantial proof.
Importantly, the court noted Tecnimont’s evidence, showcasing Eurochem’s lack of transparency regarding anti-suit orders issued by English courts. These orders were significant, given Eurochem’s participation and counterclaims in ICC arbitration.
Justice Godse concluded that Eurochem’s conduct did not justify discretionary injunctive relief, stating, “There is no reason to grant an injunction based on the plaintiff’s conduct.”
Legal Representation
Eurochem was represented by Senior Advocate Zal Andhyarujina, supported by advocates Prateek Bagaria, Maithili Parikh, Natasha Kavalakka, Lakshay Arora, Priyanshi Vakharia, and Khusboo Sharma from Singularity Legal. Tecnimont’s legal team included Senior Advocate Vikram S Nankani, with advocates Alok Jain, Samarth Saxena, Ria Garg, and Mihir Beradia.
