Bombay HC refuses asset freeze plea in ₹19,500-crore EuroChem-Tecnimont dispute

The Bombay High Court has dismissed an application by Russia-based EuroChem North-West-2 seeking an interim injunction to restrain Italian engineering company Tecnimont from dealing with its assets 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 establish a prima facie case for freezing Tecnimont’s assets pending trial. The suit was filed by EuroChem on the basis of a December 2025 judgment of the Moscow Commercial Court, which had awarded it damages, recovery of advance payments and interest against Tecnimont and its Russian subsidiary.

Also Read

Anthropic’s too-scary-to-release AI hacking tool is actually coming out — kind of

Apple Map’s Flyover feature is getting a giant upgrade that might actually make you want to start using it — its 3D cities will be available to view in much higher detail, and it seems like it could be down to the internet’s new favorite 3D photography technique, Gaussian Splatting

India trusted partner in quantum computing, supply chains: US official

Plugin developed by ProSEOBlogger. Get free gpl themes.

EuroChem sought enforcement of the Russian judgment in India under Sections 13 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure and requested an injunction preventing Tecnimont from transferring or disposing of assets in India. The company argued that Tecnimont might move funds out of the country, frustrating any future recovery.

Tecnimont opposed the plea, contending that the dispute was already the subject of ongoing arbitration under International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) rules seated in London. The company argued that contracts between the parties contained arbitration clauses governed by English law and that the Moscow court lacked jurisdiction. It also cited anti-suit and anti-enforcement orders issued by English courts and the arbitral tribunal.

The court noted that EuroChem had participated in the London arbitration proceedings for nearly three years and that the dispute before the Russian court substantially overlapped with claims pending in arbitration. Justice Godse observed that the competence of the Moscow Commercial Court was “doubtful” at this stage because of the arbitration agreements and ongoing proceedings before the ICC tribunal.

The court further held that serious objections had been raised regarding the conclusiveness of the Russian judgment, including allegations of breach of natural justice and questions over jurisdiction. As these issues would need to be tested at trial, the Russian judgment could not be treated as absolute and conclusive proof of Tecnimont’s liability at the interim stage.

Holding that EuroChem had failed to demonstrate a prima facie case, irreparable loss or balance of convenience in its favour, the court dismissed the interim application seeking an injunction.

Published on June 9, 2026