Enforcing Russian Courts' Decrees In India: The Section 13 Hurdle In Light Of Eurochem v. Tecnimont

1. Recently, in Eurochem North-West-2 v. Tecnimont SPA,¹ the Hon'ble Bombay High Court rejected Eurochem's application seeking an injunction to restrain Tecnimont from disposing of its assets in India up to the value of Eurochem's claim, as evidenced by a judgement it secured from the Commercial Court of the City of Moscow (“Moscow Court”).
2. In this Article, we discuss the background, various proceedings before the multiple fora that led to the initiation of the proceedings before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, its decision and our analysis.
   1. Background
      1. Dispute and the ICC Arbitration Proceedings
3. The dispute arose out of a series of engineering contracts between Eurochem, Tecnimont and Tecnimont's subsidiary, MT Russia, for the construction of a fertiliser project in Russia. Tecnimont and MT Russia had suspended performance under Contract 1 due to European Union (“EU”) sanctions that prevented them from obtaining various items required to perform the contract. Subsequently, Eurochem contested the lawfulness of the suspension and terminated Contracts 1 and 2.
4. Tecnimont, therefore, commenced arbitration proceedings under the International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Rules (“ICC Rules”) seated in London.
5. Eurochem participated in the arbitration proceedings and filed a counterclaim. However, it later approached the Moscow Court during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings on the ground that the EU sanctions were contrary to Russian public policy, and the arbitration was seated in an “unfriendly foreign state”.
6. Upon Tecnimont's request, the ICC Tribunal issued an anti-suit injunction and an anti-enforcement injunction that restrained Eurochem from continuing litigation in Russia, and enforcing orders obtained from Russian Courts in other jurisdictions.
7. Notably, in November 2025, the UK High Court had also issued an order under Section 42 of the English Arbitration Act, 1996² directing Eurochem to comply with the ICC Tribunal's peremptory order no. 28 to halt overseas litigation.
   1. 2. Proceedings before the Moscow Court
8. Eurochem brought proceedings against Tecnimont for breach of contract and filed a Statement of Claim before the Moscow Court seeking recovery of unutilized advance payments, interest and damages incurred in entering into substitute agreements which totalled more than INR 23,000 Crores. This claim was materially similar to the Counterclaim made in the ICC arbitration proceedings.
9.  The Moscow Court granted interim measures securing part of Eurochem's claim, including the attachment of funds and property of MT Russia and Tecnimont. Subsequently, by way of the judgment dated 5 December 2025, it partly allowed Eurochem's claim and awarded damages in favour of Eurochem (“Russian Court's Judgment”).
10.  In separate proceedings before the St. Petersburg Court, Eurochem was also granted an anti-arbitration injunction that prohibited Tecnimont from proceeding with the ICC arbitration in London.
    1. 3.  Eurochem's Suit in the Hon'ble Bombay High Court
11.  Eurochem approached the Hon'ble Bombay High Court to seek a decree of the equivalent amount by relying on the Russian Court's Judgement as conclusive evidence of debt. An interim application was also filed to seek an injunction restraining Tecnimont from disposing of any of their assets in India up to the value of Eurochem's claim.
12.  Eurochem's contention was that the Russian Court's Judgement fully reflected merits of the dispute and Tecnimont submitted to its jurisdiction by not raising any objection to it. It also contended that once the arbitration agreements were held to be unenforceable under Russian Law, no competing arbitral tribunal remained capable of adjudicating the dispute.
13.  Tecnimont argued that Eurochem never objected to the ICC Tribunal's jurisdiction and even filed a counterclaim. As noted above, the claim before the Moscow Court was substantially similar to the counterclaim before the ICC Tribunal. It also contested the assertion that it had acceded to the Moscow Court's jurisdiction.
14. Tecnimont also contended that the Moscow Court lacked jurisdiction as the contract contained an arbitration agreement that ousted the jurisdiction of all other courts. Additionally, it submitted that the Moscow Court did not observe the principles of natural justice in its proceedings as Eurochem had filed an amendment with more than 20,000 pages 10-14 days before the final hearing in the Moscow Court and Tecnimont was denied adequate time to respond.
15. Eurochem, on the other hand, relied on Article 248.1 of the Russian Procedure Code³ to assert that Russian Courts would have jurisdiction when access to foreign courts and international commercial arbitration is impeded due to restrictive measures against any of the parties.
16. Article 248.1, inter alia, provides that arbitration courts in Russia will have exclusive competence over disputes involving persons in respect of whom restrictive measures have been introduced, and where such measures form the basis of the dispute. It also provides that Russian courts will have jurisdiction when restrictive measures create obstacles in accessing justice from foreign courts and international commercial arbitration located outside Russia.
    2. Hon'ble Bombay High Court's View
17. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court observed that when a defendant objects to the conclusiveness of the foreign judgement, the Indian Court, at the pre-trial stage, will have to examine whether there is prima facie substance in the objection. It will have to see whether the foreign judgement is pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction and that it does not fall in of the exceptions provided under Section 13(a) - (f) of the CPC.⁴
18. Hence, if the record proves that the foreign court's jurisdiction is doubtful, an Indian Court can refuse to accept the conclusiveness of a foreign judgement.
19. It held that the presumption of conclusiveness under Section 14 of the CPC⁵ would not apply as Tecnimont had participated in the arbitration proceedings for the past three years and had approached the Moscow Court only after the UK High Court had issued an adverse order. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court also noted that the contract contained an arbitration clause that excluded the jurisdiction of other courts.
20. With respect to Article 248.1 of the Russian Procedure Code, it observed that it cannot be ascertained whether the dispute would fall within the jurisdiction of the Moscow Court at the pre-trial stage while the proceedings in relation to the same claim arising out of the same dispute were pending before the ICC Tribunal.
21. Therefore, the Hon'ble Bombay Court held that the Russian Court's Judgement could not be relied upon in the suit as conclusive evidence at the pre-trial stage as the presumption of jurisdiction by the Moscow Court was doubtful.
    3. Analysis
22. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court's view brings Section 14 of the CPC⁶ (Presumption as to foreign judgments) into focus. While Indian Courts presume that a judgement has been pronounced by a foreign court of competent jurisdiction (upon presentation of a certified copy of the judgment), such presumption can be displaced by proving want of jurisdiction (and other grounds under Section 13 of the CPC), even and especially at the interim stage.
23. One of the most important aspects considered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was Tecnimont's objection of natural justice. While the Hon'ble Bombay High Court did not rule on this at the interim stage, it did consider the issue to be serious and to be considered at trial before any enforcement is granted.
24. Another important factor that weighed in the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision is the consideration of primacy of arbitration agreement between the parties as a factor to test the competence of the Moscow Court. This approach affirms that parties would not be able to fall back on foreign law to justify departures from the contractual framework especially where the agreement contemplates arbitration as the dispute resolution mechanism.
25. It was reported that since 2022, Russian Courts invoked Article 248 over 500 times to assume jurisdiction over foreign arbitral proceedings.⁷ Interestingly, the EU does not recognize / enforce any judgement issued on the basis of Article 248 or equivalent Russian legislation. No such measure has been enacted in India as of date and courts will look at such challenges basis the facts and circumstances of each matter.
    4. Conclusion
26. Under Indian law, decrees passed by Courts in ‘reciprocating territories' can be executed in India as if they had been passed by an Indian jurisdictional court.⁸ Russia has not been notified as a reciprocating territory as of date. Hence, the only avenue for enforcement is filling a suit under Section 13 of the CPC and relying on the foreign decree as conclusive evidence. This is what has been done by Eurochem before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The suit remains pending.
27. From an Indian context, even if a Russian party obtains a favourable judgement from Russian Courts by invoking Article 248.1, the counterparty will have the opportunity to contest the assumption of Russian Court's jurisdiction under Section 13(a) when a suit is filed for enforcement (and other factors under Section 13). Existence of an arbitration clause may also be a relevant factor given the pro-arbitration stance that Indian courts have taken to prioritise party autonomy.

Footnotes

^{1 Eurochem North-West-2 v. Tecnimont SPA, Interim Application No. 569 of 2026 (Bombay High Court).}

^{2 Section 42, Arbitration Act, 1996 (United Kingdom).}

^{3 Article 248.1, Russian Arbitrazh (State Commercial) Procedure Code.}

^{4 Section 13, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (India).}

^{5 Section 14, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (India).}

^{6  Section 14, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (India).}

^{7 Mikhail Samoylov, Validity of Arbitration Clauses in Russia Since 2022, Kluwer Arbitration Blog. Available at: https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/arbitration-blog/validity-of-arbitration-clauses-in-russia-since-2022/.}

^{8 Section 44A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.}

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.