TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 518
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is annexed at Exhibit-A to the plaint. Hence, the plaintiff seeks an Indian decree for an equivalent sum exceeding Rs. 19.5 thousand crores, relying on the Russian judgment as conclusive evidence of the debt. Relying upon the said judgment, the plaintiff prays for the following two reliefs : A. Tecnimont S.p.A. (Foreign Company Registration Number : F02979 shall pay Limited Liability Company "EuroChem North-West-2" (Taxpayer Identification Number INN: 4707040090) the amounts of RUB 8,058,168,619.35 (or INR equivalent) as unjust enrichment, RUB 3,834,694,789.96 (or INR equivalent) as interest for the use of another's funds and RUB 159,222,357,146.00 (or INR equivalent) as damages. B. Tecnimont S.p.A. (Foreign Company Registration Number : F02979 shall pay Limited Liability Company "EuroChem North-West-2" (Taxpayer Identification Number INN: 4707040090) interest for the use of another's funds, calculated on the debt amount of RUB 8,058,168, 619.35 (or INR equivalent) using the key rate of the Central Bank of Russia effective during the relevant periods, for the period from November 14, 2025, to the date of actual payment of the debt. 2. The interim application i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 6th April 2026, the additional submissions on behalf of the parties were concluded, and the application was closed for orders. The statement made on behalf of the defendant was accordingly continued till the order is pronounced. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF: 6. The submissions on behalf of the plaintiff are summarised as under: (a) On 1st June 2020, a series of onshore and offshore engineering contracts were executed between the plaintiff, the defendant, and its 99% owned LLC subsidiary, MT Russia ("MTR") in Russia. These agreements were for the implementation of the K2 Project, the Eurochem Group's plan to construct a fertiliser complex in Russia. In May-June 2022, the defendant and MTR unilaterally suspended performance under Contract-1 due to EU sanctions. On 4th August 2022, the plaintiff terminated Contracts 1 and 2. The Russian judgment records that the defendant and MTR did not contest that they had suspended performance due to the EU sanctions. (b) On 1st September 2025, a statement of claim was filed by the plaintiff before the Moscow Commercial Court in Case No. A-40-231304/25-141-1793 seeking recovery of unutilized advance payments, in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt, in the Assignment Deed Proceedings, partially granted interim relief prohibiting the defendant from exercising rights under obligations obtained within the framework of the Assignment Agreement. On 10th December 2025, in a separate proceeding filed by the plaintiff before the St Petersburg Court, the court granted a permanent anti-arbitration injunction against the defendant and MTR, prohibiting them from proceeding with arbitration. (h) The defendant did not file any application challenging the Moscow Commercial Court's jurisdiction. The Russian Court's judgment fully reflects the merits, having considered the submissions from both sides. The defendant submitted to the jurisdiction and participated in the hearing, as evidenced by the Russian Judgment, and did not raise any jurisdictional objection, unlike MTR, which filed an application to that effect. In fact, based on arguments made by the defendant, a portion of the claim made by the plaintiff was disallowed by the Moscow Commercial Court. The Expert Report dated 19th December 2025, on issues of Russian law as a matter, including on court structure, substance of claims, proceedings and evidence, jurisdictiona....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eable, including by reason of obstacles to access to justice in the relevant foreign forum. Once the arbitration agreements were held unenforceable under Russian law by the Moscow commercial court, no competing arbitral forum remained capable of exercising jurisdiction over the disputes. Hence, the Moscow commercial court is the court of competent jurisdiction. The defendant cannot re-agitate the issues that were expressly considered and decided in the Russian judgment. (l) Whether the Moscow commercial court was correct in its interpretation or application of Article 248.1 of the Russian Procedure Code is wholly immaterial for the purposes of Sections 13 and 14 of the CPC. The defendant's objections would amount to inviting this court to sit in appeal over the Moscow commercial court's jurisdictional findings. Hence, any re-examination of the merits or correctness of a foreign court's jurisdictional findings is not an exception recognised under Sections 13 or 14 of the CPC. The defendant never raised any challenge under Article 148.1 of the Russian Procedure Code to invoke the arbitration agreement. Hence, it would amount to submitting to the jurisdiction of the Moscow co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....risk that the defendant shall remove or dispose of its property with a view to defrauding its creditors. Such apprehension is evident from the assignment agreement executed immediately after the plaintiff initiated proceedings before the Moscow commercial court, and from the steps taken by the defendant and its alter ego, MTR, to remove assets from Russia to Italy with the intent to defraud its creditors in Russia and to defeat the execution of any decree. (r) To support his submissions, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the following judgments : (i) Brijlal Ramjidas and Another vs. Govindram Gordhandas Seksaria and Others Bombay Series Privy Council, May 12, 13, 14, July 2 of 1947 - pg. 563). (ii) Alcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Celem S.a. of FOS 34320 Roujan, France and Another (2017) 2 SCC 253. (iii) Dan Bunkering Limited vs. PFS Shipping India Ltd. 2018 SCC Online Bom 1313. (iv) Sodhi Transport Co. and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others (1986) 2 SCC 486. (v) Ashok Kumar Goel and Others vs. BNP Paribas Suisse SA and Others Delhi High Court dated 24th December 2025. (vi) Girnara Jaisukhlal vs. Maho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rbitrator. The plaintiff never objected to the ICC Arbitration's jurisdiction and proceeded to file a counterclaim. (c) On 31st July 2025, the English Commercial Court dismissed the plaintiff's case in the Bonds Litigation against the banks, thereby holding that the Melnichenkos, who were beneficiaries of the plaintiff's assets, were subject to the EU sanctions. The English Court held that the banks had rightly refused to honour the plaintiff's demand. Thereafter, on 1st September 2025, the plaintiff participated in the ICC Arbitration and simultaneously filed the suit before the Moscow Court. (d) The plaintiff relied on Article 248.1 of the Russian Procedure Code to contend that, in view of the sanctions, the Russian Courts had exclusive jurisdiction under that provision. Thus, the plaintiff sought a judgment for approximately Rs. 23,000 crores arising from the contracts entered into on 1st June 2020. This claim was substantially similar to the counterclaim filed in ICC Arbitration proceedings initiated by the defendant. The present defendant was not a part of the proceedings initiated before the Moscow Court. (e) On 1st September 2025, despite havin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Agreement. (h) When the defendant became aware of the fact that the plaintiff had moved the courts in Russia, the defendant sought and was granted various anti-suit injunctions, anti-enforcement injunctions and peremptory orders from the ICC Tribunal including: (a) Procedural Order 18 dated 13th October 2025, (b) PO 22 dated 11th November 2025, (c) PO 23 dated 14th November 2025, PO 25 dated 9th December 2025. The ICC Tribunal's orders (i) restrained the plaintiff from continuing the litigation in Russia, (ii) directed the plaintiff to withdraw the Russian litigation, and (iii) directed the plaintiff to refrain from enforcing any orders of the Russian courts as the same was in breach of the arbitration agreements in the K2 contracts. These anti-suit injunctions and peremptory orders of the ICC Tribunal were issued prior to the Moscow Judgment, and the plaintiff has flouted the same. The anti-enforcement injunction and peremptory order of the ICC Tribunal dated 9th December 2025 was issued after the Moscow Judgment but before the filing of the Suit in India, and thus the plaintiff's Suit in India is in breach ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment and St. Petersburg Injunctions. There is no mention of Anti-Suit Injunctions and Peremptory Orders of English Courts, which were issued prior to the Moscow Judgment and restrained the plaintiff from litigating before the Moscow Court. There is no mention that the plaintiff appealed the Butcher Judgment and lost on appeal, as evidenced by the Court of Appeals order issued prior to the St. Petersburg Injunctions. (n) The plaintiff is appearing without obstacles to access to justice, as alleged before the Moscow Court. However, it suppresses all of the above facts in order to make it appear that the Moscow Court had exclusive jurisdiction under Article 248.1 due to obstacles to access to justice. Thus, it is not entitled to interim relief. (o) The defendant expressly objected to the Moscow Court's jurisdiction. Therefore, participation on the merits on a without prejudice basis cannot be deemed a submission to the jurisdiction of the foreign court. If the party has not abandoned its challenge to the court's jurisdiction, it cannot be said to have submitted to the foreign court's jurisdiction. It is clear that the defendant has never submitted to the Mosc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he competent court or forum to the exclusion of all other courts. This is more so where the parties themselves have expressly waived and excluded the jurisdiction of any other court. (t) A plain reading of Article 248.1 shows that it is applicable in certain circumstances, as Article 248.1.1 starts with the words "Unless otherwise provided by......... an agreement of the parties, in accordance with which the consideration of disputes with their participation is referred to the competence of the foreign courts, international commercial agreement located outside the territory of Russian Federation." In other words, Article 248.1 is not applicable if there is an agreement between the parties to submit disputes to foreign courts. Article 248.1.2 applies in relation to a dispute between a Russian and another foreign person if the basis for such dispute is restrictive measures imposed by a foreign state. Article 248.1.4 provides that the exclusive jurisdiction of Russian courts shall apply only where the agreement between the parties is incapable of being performed due to the application of restrictive measures by a foreign state against one of the parties to the dispute, creati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sel for the plaintiff and also relied upon the following judgments : (i) Amar Singh vs. Union of India and Others (2011) 7 SCC 69. (ii) Swan Mills Ltd. V. Dhirajlal @ Dhirubhai Babaria and Others 2012 (4) Mh.L. J. 937. (iii) Honasa Consumer Ltd. vs. RSM General Trading LLC 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5631. (iv) Google LLC vs. Nao Tsargrad Media (2025) EWHC 94 (Comm) English Court. (v) Modi Entertainment Network & Another vs. W.S.G Cricket Pte. Ltd. (2003) 4 SCC 341. (vi) Bank A vs. Bank B (2024) HKCFI 2529. (vii) Google LLC vs. Nao Tsargrad Media 5:24-cv-05423-EJD US Court (viii) Barclays Bank PLC vs. VEB RF (2024) EWHC 1074 (Comm). 8. Learned senior counsel for the defendant therefore submitted that at this preliminary stage, only based on the Russian court judgment, the plaintiff would not be entitled to any interim injunction. He submits that no case is made out to support the apprehension for seeking the injunction in respect of the defendant's assets. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS : 9. The plaintiff has filed the suit in terms of Section 13 of the CPC, which provides that a foreign judgment shall be conclu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., at a pre-trial stage for examining whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interim relief on the ground that the foreign judgment can be accepted as conclusive evidence to support the plaintiff's claim, the Indian court needs to be satisfied that prima facie, the foreign judgment is seen to have been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction and that it does not fall under any of the exceptions provided under Section 13 of the CPC. 13. In the present case, the plaintiff contends that the foreign Judgment is conclusive evidence of the defendant's liability and that the plaintiff is entitled to seek an Indian decree for the amount payable by the defendant as per the Russian Judgment. According to the plaintiff, the Russian judgment does not fall under any of the exceptions provided under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13 of the CPC. The certified copy and apostilled copy of the judgment are produced on record; hence, according to the plaintiff, the judgment must be presumed to have been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, it is the case of the plaintiff that, in view of Sections 13 and 14 of the CPC, the Russian judgment is conclusive evidence o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n court, challenging the order of joinder of the present defendant, it appears that the challenge was on the point of jurisdiction. There appears to be no dispute that the plaintiff participated in the arbitration proceedings in the UK for three years. It is only after the order in the Bond Litigation that the plaintiff initiated proceedings in the Russian court, as the English court's order was against the plaintiff. The plaintiff has relied on Article 248.1 of the Russian Procedure Code to contend that the Russian court has jurisdiction despite the arbitration agreement. 17. Considering the facts of the case and the rival submissions, the controversy regarding jurisdiction revolves around the effect of Article 248.1 of the Russian Procedure Code, which reads as under: "1. Unless otherwise provided by an international treaty of the Russian Federation or an agreement of the parties, in accordance with which the consideration of disputes with their participation is referred to the competence of foreign courts, international commercial arbitrations located outside the territory of the Russian Federation, the exclusive competence of commercial courts in the Russian Federat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a foreign court, international commercial arbitration located outside the territory of the Russian Federation. 4. The provisions of this Article shall also apply if the agreement of the parties, according to which the consideration of disputes with their participation is referred to the competence of a foreign court and international commercial arbitration located outside the territory of the Russian Federation, is unenforceable due to the application of restrictive measures against one of the parties to the dispute by a foreign state, state association and/or union and/or state (interstate) institution of a foreign state or state association and (or) union, creating obstacles for such a person in access to justice. 5. The provisions of this Article shall not prevent the recognition and enforcement of a foreign court decision or foreign arbitral award made on the claim of a person specified in this Article(2), or if this person did not object to the consideration of the dispute with its participation by a foreign court, international commercial arbitration located outside the territory of the Russian Federation, including no application for an injunction on initi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lute evidence that the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the amounts claimed in this suit on the ground that it constitutes a debt against the defendant. 21. The plaintiff has also brought on record the judgment of the Russian appellate court, confirming the judgment of the Moscow commercial court, which the plaintiff relied upon to seek benefit under Sections 13 and 14 of the CPC. The Russian appellate court's judgment dismissing the defendant's appeal was passed after the filing of this suit. Hence, the other grounds earlier argued by the parties regarding the effect of the Moscow Commercial Court's judgment being subject to the outcome of the defendant's appeal are unnecessary to discuss, as the appeal has now been dismissed. LEGAL PRINCIPLES RELIED UPON ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF: 22. In Brijlal Ramjidas, the appeal before the Privy Council challenged a judgment and decree of the Bombay High Court in its appellate jurisdiction, confirming the High Court's decree in its original civil jurisdiction. The issue that arose was whether the Indore High Court's judgment holding the arbitral award to be valid binds the parties in the proceedings in British India filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is further held that the courts of this country will not enforce the decisions of foreign courts that lack jurisdiction in the international sense recognised in international law. 27. There are plenty of other judgments, foreign texts and articles relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff. However, either the judgements are of the Delhi High Court following legal principles settled by the Apex Court, or they pertain to the execution of decrees passed by courts in reciprocating territory under Section 44A of the CPC. The controversy in this case is at the pre-trial stage, concerning the grant of an interim injunction in a suit seeking relief for the recovery of amounts, relying on the foreign judgment as conclusive evidence. Therefore, it is unnecessary to discuss them, inasmuch as the legal principles discussed in the above paragraphs cover the controversy to be decided in the present application. LEGAL PRINCIPLES RELIED UPON ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT: 28. Article 248.1 of the Russian Procedure Code was discussed by the King's Bench Division, Commercial Court of the High Court of England and Wales in Google LLC. It is held that nothing in Article 248.1 would....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l for the defendant are of foreign courts on the point of anti-suit injunction. The decision of the Apex Court in Modi Entertainment Network also pertains to an anti-suit injunction. Hence, it is not necessary to discuss those judgments. 32. Learned senior counsel for the defendant tendered a compilation of judgments running into 552 pages consisting of 18 judgments. However, on a specific query regarding its relevance, learned senior counsel for the defendant fairly submitted that he would rely only on the relevant 8 of the 18 judgments. CONCLUSIONS: 33. At this stage, I find it necessary to record that I heard learned senior counsels for both parties at length. When the arguments were concluded, and the matter was closed for orders, the parties were permitted to submit brief written notes of their respective arguments advanced before the court. However, both parties have submitted lengthy written notes that also refer to the judgments not cited before the court. Although the learned senior counsel for the defendant had fairly relied only on the relevant 8 out of the 18 judgments, the written notes contain submissions with reference to all the judgments, as well as to new....