The Bombay Excessive Courtroom has dismissed an utility by Russia-based EuroChem North-West-2 in search of an interim injunction to restrain Italian engineering firm Tecnimont from coping with its property in India in a dispute involving claims exceeding ₹19,500 crore.
Justice Gauri Godse, in a judgment delivered on June 8, held that EuroChem had failed to determine a prima facie case for freezing Tecnimont’s property pending trial. The swimsuit was filed by EuroChem on the premise of a December 2025 judgment of the Moscow Industrial Courtroom, which had awarded it damages, restoration of advance funds and curiosity towards Tecnimont and its Russian subsidiary.
EuroChem sought enforcement of the Russian judgment in India below Sections 13 and 14 of the Code of Civil Process and requested an injunction stopping Tecnimont from transferring or disposing of property in India. The corporate argued that Tecnimont may transfer funds overseas, irritating any future restoration.
Tecnimont opposed the plea, contending that the dispute was already the topic of ongoing arbitration below Worldwide Chamber of Commerce (ICC) guidelines seated in London. The corporate argued that contracts between the events contained arbitration clauses ruled by English legislation and that the Moscow court docket lacked jurisdiction. It additionally cited anti-suit and anti-enforcement orders issued by English courts and the arbitral tribunal.
The court docket famous that EuroChem had participated in the London arbitration proceedings for practically three years and that the dispute earlier than the Russian court docket considerably overlapped with claims pending in arbitration. Justice Godse noticed that the competence of the Moscow Industrial Courtroom was “uncertain” at this stage due to the arbitration agreements and ongoing proceedings earlier than the ICC tribunal.
The court docket additional held that severe objections had been raised relating to the conclusiveness of the Russian judgment, together with allegations of breach of pure justice and questions over jurisdiction. As these points would have to be examined at trial, the Russian judgment couldn’t be handled as absolute and conclusive proof of Tecnimont’s legal responsibility on the interim stage.
Holding that EuroChem had did not display a prima facie case, irreparable loss or stability of comfort in its favour, the court docket dismissed the interim utility in search of an injunction.
Revealed on June 9, 2026
Source link
#Bombay #refuses #asset #freeze #plea #19500crore #EuroChemTecnimont #dispute
