Limited Liability Company Eurochem Nw 2 vs Tecnimont S.P.A (Foreign Company Registration Number F02979)
- Court
- Bombay High Court
2026:BHC-OS:12539
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
rrpillai
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 569 OF 2026
IN
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 6 OF 2026
Limited Liability Company
“Eurochem North-West-2”
(TIN INN : 4707040090)
188480 Leningrad Region,
Kingiseppsky District,
Phosphorite Industrial Zone,
Central Drive, Building 7,
Office 22, Russia. … Applicant
In the matter of
Limited Liability Company
“Eurochem North-West-2”
(TIN INN : 4707040090)
188480 Leningrad Region,
Kingiseppsky District,
Phosphorite Industrial Zone,
Central Drive, Building 7,
Office 22, Russia. … Plaintiff
vs.
Tecnimont S.P.A. (Foreign Company
Registration Number : F02979)
Tecnimont ICB House, 504 Link Road
Malad (West), Mumbai-400 064 … Defendant
Digitally signed
by
RAJESHWARI
RAMESH
PILLAI
Date:
2026.06.08
18:45:31
+0530
RAJESHWARI
RAMESH
PILLAI
1/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:59:59 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Prateek Bagaria,
Ms. Maithili Parikh, Ms. Natasha Kavalakka, Mr. Lakshay Arora,
Ms. Priyanshi Vakharia and Ms. Khusboo Sharma i/b. Singularity
Legal for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Vikram S. Nankani, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Alok Jain, Mr.
Samarth Saxena, Ms. Ria Garg, Mr. Mihir Beradia i/b. Mr.
Samarth Pawan Saxena for the Defendant.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE J
th
RESERVED ON : 6 APRIL 2026
th
PRONOUNCED ON : 8 JUNE 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. This suit is filed in terms of Section 13 of the Code of Civil
th
Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) by relying upon the judgment dated 5
December 2025 passed by the Commercial Court of the City of
Moscow in Russia, in favour of the plaintiff. According to the
plaintiff, the present defendant was a co-defendant before the
Moscow court and, pursuant to the Russian judgment, is
indebted for the amount granted therein. A copy of the judgment
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
2/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:59:59 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
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 is filed to seek an injunction
restraining the defendant from removing or disposing of any of
their assets in India up to the value of RUB 171,115,220,555/-
(or INR equivalent) and maintaining their assets to the value of
the plaintiff’s claim.
3/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:59:59 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
3. The plaintiff expresses an apprehension that the funds
available with the defendant would be taken out of India and
would defeat the plaintiff’s right to recover the amount for
enforcing the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff by the
Moscow Court. The defendant appeared and filed an affidavit
in reply. When the defendant requested time to argue the
interim application, the plaintiff expressed an apprehension
that the defendant's funds would be removed from India to
defeat the plaintiff’s claim. Hence, the defendant had made a
th
statement before this court on 13 January 2026 stating that
no precipitative action shall be taken that would defeat the
plaintiff’s claim. It was stated on behalf of the defendant that
save and except in the ordinary course of business, the status
quo in respect of the funds shall be maintained.
th
4. Thereafter, on 20 January 2026, it was clarified that the
statement made on behalf of the defendant, as recorded in
th
paragraph 3 of the order dated 13 January 2026, is restricted
th
to the defendant's actions in India only. Thereafter, on 11
February 2026, the arguments were concluded, and the
application was closed for orders, and the earlier statement
4/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:59:59 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
was continued.
th
5. On 12 March 2026, the application was taken on board
in view of the production praecipe filed on behalf of the
plaintiff. It was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that after the
matter was closed for orders, the plaintiff had received a copy
of the judgment in the appeal preferred by the defendant in
Russia. Hence, liberty was sought by the plaintiff to file an
application to bring on record a copy of the judgment.
Accordingly, the matter was de-reserved and listed for hearing,
with liberty granted to the plaintiff to file an application.
Accordingly, Interim Application (L) No.11217 of 2026 was filed
for leave to file an additional affidavit to bring on record the
subsequent judgment of dismissal of the defendant’s appeal
before the Russian Appellate Court. The interim application
th
was allowed on 6 April 2026 to the extent of taking on record
th
the judgment of the Russian Appellate Court. Thereafter, on 6
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.
5/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:59:59 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
6. The submissions on behalf of the plaintiff are
summarised as under:
st
(a) On 1 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
th
performance under Contract-1 due to EU sanctions. On 4
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.
st
(b) On 1 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, interest and damages
6/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:59:59 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
incurred in entering into substitute agreements, and
damages which totalled more than Rs. 23 Thousand
Crores.
th
(c) On 8 October 2025, a Deed of Assignment between
the defendant and MTR was executed, by which MTR
irrevocably assigned to the defendant a bundle of claims,
including proceeds from the K2 Agreement and the
Renaissance dispute, in which MTR had a counterclaim
from a sub-contractor. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the
purpose of this agreement was to transfer assets out of
Moscow to Italy.
th
(d) On 13 October 2025, a procedural order was passed
in the ongoing International Chamber of Commerce ("ICC
Rules") arbitration proceedings between the parties, which
rd
was subsequently corrected on 23 October 2025. By this
order, the ICC Tribunal, inter alia, directed the plaintiff to
th
withdraw the proceedings in Russia. On 27 October 2025,
by the Order of the Moscow Commercial Court, the
th
defendant was joined in the case as a co-defendant. On 30
October 2025, the Moscow Commercial Court granted
7/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:59:59 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
interim measures securing part of the plaintiff's claim,
including the attachment of the funds and property of MTR
and the defendant.
th
(e) On 11 November 2025, an order was passed in the
ongoing ICC arbitration proceedings between the parties,
directing the plaintiff to withdraw the Russian interim
th
measures application before the Moscow Court. On 12
November 2025, the MTR filed an appeal against the above
Order of the Moscow Commercial Court, i.e. the order
joining the defendant as a co-defendant.
st
(f) On 21 November 2025, the UK High Court issued an
anti-suit injunction against the plaintiff, restraining them from
th
initiating proceedings in Russia. On 24 November 2025,
the plaintiff filed a Statement of Claim in Case No. A40-
322328/2025 before the Moscow Court to declare the
th
Assignment Agreement invalid. On 25 November 2025, the
Appeal Court in Moscow dismissed the appeals filed by
th
both the defendant and MTR against the Order dated 27
October 2025 of the Moscow Commercial Court. As such,
the appellate court held that the joinder of the defendant
8/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:59:59 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
was valid.
th
(g) On 27 November 2025, the operative part of the
Judgment was issued by the Moscow Commercial Court,
th
partly allowing the plaintiff's claim and on 5 December
rd
2025, the full judgment was issued. On 3 December 2025,
Moscow Court, in the Assignment Deed Proceedings,
partially granted interim relief prohibiting the defendant from
exercising rights under obligations obtained within the
th
framework of the Assignment Agreement. On 10
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
9/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
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
th
Expert Report dated 19 December 2025, on issues of
Russian law as a matter, including on court structure,
substance of claims, proceedings and evidence,
jurisdictional basis, applicable law, finality of rulings, etc., is
relied upon to support the plaintiff’s present suit claim and
the prayers in the Interim Application. The anti-enforcement
injunction proceedings initiated by the defendant in the
English court would not affect this court's jurisdiction.
(i) Section 13 of the CPC creates an irrebuttable
presumption in favour of the matters adjudicated upon
between the parties in the judgment of the Moscow
commercial court. The only available argument to dislodge
the presumption is provided under clauses (a) to (f) of
section 13 of the CPC. Section 14 of the CPC creates a
rebuttable presumption in favour of the competence of the
Moscow commercial court. The presumption in law creates
a prima facie case in favour of the party for whose benefit it
10/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
exists. Thus, this court has no option but to hold that the
matters adjudicated by the Russian court judgment exist,
including the debt, which it creates. The presumption of
correctness of the Russian court judgment prima facie
establishes the competence of the Moscow commercial
court, and the onus shifts to the defendant to adduce
material to rebut the presumption.
(j) For adjudicating the competence of the court as
contemplated under Section 14 of the CPC, the test to be
applied is that the foreign court must have competence
under the law of the state in which it functions, as well as
under international law. The competency in the international
sense would mean jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
controversy and the jurisdiction over the parties. The
question of whether a foreign court is the proper court to
deal with a particular matter, according to the law of the
foreign country, is a question for the court of that country. In
the present case, the Russian judgment shows that the
Moscow commercial court had jurisdiction under Russian
law.
11/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
(k) The issue regarding the arbitration agreement and the
jurisdiction of the Moscow court is dealt with in the judgment
under Article 248.1 of the Commercial Procedure Code of
the Russian Federation ("Russian Procedure Code"), that
is, the procedural code in Russia. It is held that, as a matter
of Russian law, they were unenforceable and incapable of
performance, on the basis that the foundation of the dispute
was the imposition of EU restrictive measures, and that the
arbitration clauses were unenforceable, 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
12/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
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 court.
(m) The defendant had challenged the Moscow
commercial court's order requiring the defendant to join the
suit filed against MTR. The appeal was returned on purely
procedural grounds: the joinder ruling should not be
appealed separately but only along with the Moscow court's
merit-based decision. The appeal court did not examine the
issue of jurisdiction or competence. The joinder ruling was
therefore not adjudicated purely on the ground that it was a
procedural order.
13/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
(n) There was no obligation on the plaintiff to provide any
further documents or information, as alleged by the
defendant, that it was suppressed. The plaintiff relies upon
the Russian court judgment, the certified and apostilled
copies of which are produced in the suit, and they are
conclusive and sufficient to prove the presumption in favour
of the plaintiff. This court cannot enquire whether the
conclusions recorded in the Russian judgment are
supported by evidence or are otherwise correct, in view of
the binding character of the Russian judgment. Its binding
character can be displaced only by establishing that the
case falls within one of the six exceptions provided in
Section 13 (a) to (f) of the CPC.
(o) Pendency of any appeal filed against the Russian
judgment, or that it is enforceable in Russia, would not fall
under any of the exceptions specified under section 13 (a)
to (f) of the CPC and is no bar in commencing an action on
the foreign judgment and seeking an Indian decree in terms
thereof. Even otherwise the appeal filed by the defendant is
now dismissed. The defendant’s pleadings before the
14/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
English Court show admission on the part of the defendant
that there exists a debt, and the defendant is also referred
to as a judgment debtor.
(p) Though the defendant has relied upon the New York
Convention to contend that an arbitration agreement cannot
be rendered incapable of being performed, the defendant
has not identified the provision of the said Convention to
support the objection. None of the scenarios provided under
the said convention would support the defendant’s objection
that the Russian judgment was based on an incorrect view
of international law.
(q) There is no departure from the judicial process, and
the Moscow proceedings were not opposed to natural
justice to attract Section 13 (d) of the CPC. There is a prima
facie 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
15/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
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
1
Gordhandas Seksaria and Others .
(ii) Alcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Celem S.a. of FOS
2
34320 Roujan, France and Another
3
(iii) Dan Bunkering Limited vs. PFS Shipping India Ltd.
(iv) Sodhi Transport Co. and Others vs. State of U.P. and
4
Others
(v) Ashok Kumar Goel and Others vs. BNP Paribas
5
Suisse SA and Others
(vi) Girnara Jaisukhlal vs. Mahomedhusein Karwa and
6
Another
7
(vii) Hari Singh vs. Muhammad Said and Others
(viii) R.R. Enterprises vs. CMD of Garware-Wall Ropes
1
Bombay Series Privy Council , May 12, 13, 14, July 2 of 1947 – pg. 563)
2
(2017) 2 SCC 253
3
2018 SCC Online Bom 1313
4
(1986) 2 SCC 486
5 th
Delhi High Court dated 24 December 2025
6
1939 SCC OnLine Bom 15
7
1926 ILR (Appellate Civil ) Vol VIII 54
16/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
8
Ltd and Others
(ix) V. Subramania Iyer vs. S.C. Annasami Iyer and
9
Others
(x) R. Viswanathan and Others vs. Rukn-Ul-Mulk Syed
10
Abdul Wajid since deceased and Others .
11
(xi) Ramji Dayawala and Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Invest Import
(s) Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submitted that to
form a prima facie view in favour of the plaintiff, the competence
of the Moscow Commercial Court and the judgment passed by
the Russian Court would assume relevance at this preliminary
stage. The presumption can be rebutted by the defendant only
in terms of the exceptions provided under Section 13 of the CPC.
The Russian Judgment would therefore be enforceable, subject
to the exceptions provided under Section 13 of the CPC, which
would be decided at a later stage in the trial. However, at this
preliminary stage, presumption in view of Sections 13 and 14
would be to the benefit of the plaintiff. Hence, in common law,
when a foreign judgment is final and conclusive, the existence of
the plaintiff’s right to enforce a foreign judgment in India would
8
ILR (2013) 1 Delhi 248
9
2026 SCC Online 577 (Part 29)
10
1962 SCC Online SC 112
11
(1981) 1 SCC 80
17/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
flow from the presumption provided under Section 13.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:
7. The submissions made on behalf of the defendant are
summarised as under:
(a) According to the defendant, in February 2022, due to
Russia's ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine, the UK had
imposed sanctions on individuals who are the ultimate
beneficiaries of the plaintiff’s assets. In view of the sanctions
imposed, the defendant and its Russian Subsidiary, MTR,
temporarily suspended performance of the contract in May
2022. In view of the temporary suspension, the plaintiff
illegally terminated the contract entered into between the
st
plaintiff and the defendant’s subsidiary on 1 June 2020.
(b) According to the defendant, the dispute arose from the
plaintiff's temporary suspension of the contract and its
termination, and was the subject matter of arbitration under
the ICC Rules with a seat in London. The plaintiff participated
in the arbitration proceedings and nominated its arbitrator. The
plaintiff never objected to the ICC Arbitration’s jurisdiction and
18/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
proceeded to file a counterclaim.
st
(c) On 31 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
st
refused to honour the plaintiff’s demand. Thereafter, on 1
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.
st
23,000 crores arising from the contracts entered into on 1
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.
19/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
st
(e) On 1 September 2025, despite having participated in
the ICC Arbitration without protest, the plaintiff filed a case
before the Moscow Court, on the presumption that there were
obstacles to access to justice in the ICC Arbitration and before
th
the English Courts due to the sanctions. On 24 October
2025, the plaintiff sought to add the defendant as a co-
th
defendant, and the application was allowed on 28 October
th
2025. Therefore, until 28 October 2025, the defendant was
not a party to the main proceedings in the Moscow Court. The
joinder of the defendant was appealed; however, it was
ordered to appeal the joinder with the merits when they were
th
decided. On 11 November 2025, MTR challenged the
Moscow Court's jurisdiction, a challenge that the defendant
th
supported in writing on 27 November 2025.
th th
(f) On 13 November 2025 and 17 November 2025, that is,
10 to 14 days prior to the final hearing, the plaintiff filed an
amendment to its claim containing over 20,000 pages and an
th
expert report. On 27 November 2025, the Moscow Court did
not permit the defendant and MTR any time to peruse the
voluminous amendment filed 2 weeks back. The defendant
20/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
and MTR were refused the opportunity to give a statement of
defence on record and were granted six minutes to argue a
complex matter. The court refused to appoint an independent
expert as requested by MTR, but relied upon the plaintiff's
expert and, wrongly assuming jurisdiction under Article 248.1,
pronounced the decision and ordered that the defendant and
MTR were jointly and severally liable to pay approximately Rs.
19,600 crores to the plaintiff.
(g) In parallel, the St. Petersburg Court wrongly granted
th
anti-suit & anti-arbitration proceedings injunction on 19
December 2025, against the defendant and MTR, restraining
them from proceeding before the ICC Tribunal and in English
Courts. Simultaneously, the plaintiff also sought from the
Moscow Court the invalidation of an Assignment Agreement
th
dated 8 October 2025 entered into between the defendant
and MTR. Under the Assignment Agreement, MTR assigned
certain claims (including under the ICC Arbitration) to the
defendant. The plaintiff falsely contended that the Assignment
Agreement was entered into to move assets out of Russia to
defraud the plaintiff. The Moscow Court issued an interim
21/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
rd
injunction dated 3 December 2025 restraining the defendant
from acting under the Assignment 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
th
Tribunal including: (a) Procedural Order 18 dated 13 October
th
2025, (b) PO 22 dated 11 November 2025, (c) PO 23 dated
th th
14 November 2025, PO 25 dated 9 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
th
and peremptory order of the ICC Tribunal dated 9 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
22/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
th
in breach of the ICC Tribunal's order dated 9 December
2025.
(i) The defendant sought to enforce the above orders of the
ICC Tribunal under Section 42 of the [English] Arbitration Act,
as the seat of the ICC Arbitration is London. The defendant
st
was successful in the English High Court's decision dated 21
November 2025, which the plaintiff unsuccessfully appealed to
the Court of Appeal in England.
(j) After 3 years of participation, the plaintiff finally challenged
the jurisdiction of the ICC Tribunal, alleging obstacles to
access to justice and that the arbitration agreement had
become incapable of performance. This is despite the plaintiff
blatantly stating in the ICC Arbitration that it has "every
interest in these proceedings being pursued to the earliest
possible conclusion” and admitting before the English Court
that it is "not challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal’.
(k) The plaintiff also sought an injunction before the
Malaysian High Court at Kuala Lumpur against the defendant,
th
MTR and its various related parties. On 29 December 2025,
23/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
the defendant approached the English High Court seeking an
order in terms of the anti-enforcement injunction issued by the
th
ICC Tribunal dated 9 December 2025, which was issued
th th
prior to the filing of this Suit. On 9 January 2026 and 11
January 2026, the defendant appealed against the Moscow
Judgment and the St. Petersburg Injunctions. These appeals
were filed within the prescribed time limits.
(l) There is suppression of material facts in the plaint and in
the Interim Application, and there are false or misleading
statements which disentitle the plaintiff from seeking the
reliefs.
(m) There is no mention in the present suit about the
arbitration agreements in the K2 contracts, which contain valid
and enforceable arbitration agreements that determine that
the Moscow Court had no jurisdiction to issue the Moscow
Judgment in light of the exclusive forum and law contractually
and expressly chosen by the parties, including waiver of all
other courts having jurisdiction. There is no mention of the
ICC Tribunal having issued anti-suit injunctions, peremptory
orders and anti-enforcement orders holding that the plaintiff
24/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
was in breach of arbitration agreements by commencing
litigation in Russia. These orders were binding on the plaintiff,
issued prior to the Moscow Judgment 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
25/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
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 Moscow Court's
jurisdiction. The plaintiff has falsely represented that the
defendant was given a full and fair opportunity to appear and
defend itself in the proceedings before the Moscow Court;
however, the record shows that the principles of natural justice
were never observed by the Moscow Court.
(p) The plaintiff's misconduct disentitles it from interim relief.
Accepting the conclusiveness of the foreign judgment or the
competency of the foreign court at this interim stage would
imply that in every case brought on a foreign judgment, the
Indian Court would grant interim relief without even examining
whether it fulfils the criteria under Sections 13 or 14. The
requirement that a foreign judgment has to be conclusive is
not an additional limb over and above clauses (a) to (f) in
Section 13, but in fact inherent in Section 13 of CPC that the
foreign judgment has to have res judicata effect in the first
place.
(q) Moscow Court is not of competent jurisdiction. Through
26/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
st
Clauses 21.3 and 7.5 of the K2 Contracts dated 1 June 2020,
the parties have agreed to resolve disputes by arbitration
under ICC Rules with the seat in London. The parties have
also specifically chosen through Clause 26.3 and Clause 7.2
that the K2 Contracts will be governed by the laws of England
and Wales". Notably, while entering into the arbitration
agreement, with the seat in London, and English law being the
governing law, the parties have commensurately, by an
express agreement, excluded and waived jurisdiction of "any
court", even though such a court may otherwise have had
jurisdiction.
(r) It is settled law that where parties have agreed that the
contract and disputes thereunder shall be governed by the law
of a particular country, the parties being bound thereby, all
courts outside the jurisdiction of the chosen law are not
competent. Since the parties have chosen the law of England
to govern the contract and the disputes arising thereunder to
be resolved by arbitration with the seat at London, the courts
of other countries/jurisdictions are excluded and,
consequently, not competent.
27/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
(s) Therefore, the Courts in India have consistently held the
principle that the parties are bound by their chosen forum for
dispute resolution. Such an agreement on the choice of law
and the arbitration agreement renders only the courts of the
governing law as the 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.
28/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
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, creating obstacles to that
person's access to justice.
(u) There is an agreement between the parties under which
disputes are to be referred to international commercial
arbitration outside Russia, to the exclusion and waiver of
jurisdiction of all other courts. There are no restrictive
measures imposed by a foreign state, insofar as arbitration in
London is concerned, against the plaintiff, contrary to what is
provided under Article 248.1.4. There are no restrictions on
the plaintiff’s participation in international commercial
arbitration in London. There are no obstacles for the plaintiff to
access justice in London under English law.
(v) Admittedly, prior to invoking Article 248.1 in September
2025, the plaintiff participated in the appointment of the
arbitral tribunal under ICC Rules by appointing Doug Jones;
an Australian National, as its arbitrator. The plaintiff
29/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
participated in the arbitration under ICC Rules, presented
counterclaims and did not challenge the jurisdiction of the
arbitral tribunal. The plaintiff was duly represented before the
English Courts both in the Bonds Litigation and the English
Anti-Suit Injunction proceedings brought by the defendant.
After invoking Article 248.1 in September 2025 on the ground
that there are obstacles to access to justice in London, the
plaintiff continued to participate in the arbitration and
continued to participate in the arbitration even as of date with
over 10 lawyers, which demonstrates that it is able to be
represented without any monetary concerns or other
obstacles to access to justice.
(w) Thus, it is clear that Article 248.1 has no applicability
as its ingredients are not made out, and the parties'
agreement has to be honoured. Thus, the Moscow Court is
not a court of competent jurisdiction. In similar circumstances,
foreign courts in the U.K., the U.S.A. and Hong Kong, after
considering Article 248.1 have granted anti-suit injunctions
against proceedings in Russia in favour of foreign courts
and/or international commercial arbitrations. These Courts
30/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
have rejected the defence that, under Article 248.1, Russian
Courts have jurisdiction when parties have consciously
elected to resolve disputes in foreign courts or in foreign-
seated arbitrations.
(x) Learned counsel for the defendant relied upon the Apex
Court’s decision in R. Vishwanathan cited by the learned
counsel for the plaintiff and also relied upon the following
judgments :
12
(i) Amar Singh vs. Union of India and Others
(ii) Swan Mills Ltd. V. Dhirajlal @ Dhirubhai Babaria and
13
Others
14
(iii) Honasa Consumer Ltd. vs. RSM General Trading LLC
15
(iv) Google LLC vs. Nao Tsargrad Media
(v) Modi Entertainment Network & Another vs. W.S.G Cricket
16
Pte. Ltd.
17
(vi) Bank A vs. Bank B
12
(2011) 7 SCC 69
13
2012 (4) Mh.L. J. 937
14
2024 SCC OnLine Del 5631
15
(2025) EWHC 94 (Comm) English Court
16
(2003) 4 SCC 341
17
(2024) HKCFI 2529
31/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
18
(vii) Google LLC vs. Nao Tsargrad Media
19
(viii) Barclays Bank PLC vs. VEB RF
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 conclusive
in respect of the matter directly adjudicated upon between the
same parties, or between parties under whom they, or any of
them, claim to litigate under the same title. Section 13 further
provides for exceptions to the conclusiveness. Therefore, if the
foreign judgment falls under any of the exceptions provided
under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13 of the CPC, the foreign
judgment cannot be accepted as conclusive. In view of Section
18
5:24-cv-05423-EJD US Court
19
(2024) EWHC 1074 (Comm)
32/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
14 of the CPC, if a certified copy of a foreign judgment is
produced, the court has to presume that it is pronounced by a
Court of competent jurisdiction; however, this presumption is not
absolute, and it is subject to the contrary being seen on the
record or that it can be displaced by proving want of jurisdiction.
10. Therefore, under Sections 13 and 14 of the CPC, when a
certified copy of a foreign judgment is produced before an Indian
court, it shall be accepted as conclusive as to the matter
adjudicated between the same parties, and it shall be presumed
that it is pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction.
However, such a conclusiveness can be dislodged if any of the
exceptions under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13 apply, and the
Indian Court can refuse to accept such a presumption of
competent jurisdiction if the record shows to the contrary. It can
also be proved by the defendant that the foreign judgment was
not pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction.
11. Therefore, if the record prima facie shows that the foreign
court’s jurisdiction is doubtful, the Indian Court can refuse to
accept the absolute conclusiveness of the foreign judgment at a
pre-trial stage. Similarly, at a pre-trial stage, for accepting that
33/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
the foreign judgment is conclusive as to the matter directly
adjudicated between the same parties, the Indian Court has to
be prima facie satisfied that the foreign judgment does not fall
under any of the exceptions under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13
of the CPC.
12. When a defendant objects to the conclusiveness of the
foreign judgment or the presumption of competent jurisdiction of
the foreign court, the Indian court, at a pre-trial stage, will have to
examine whether, prima facie, there is substance in the
objection. The burden of proving or disproving the
conclusiveness or presumption would depend on the rival
pleadings that can be considered at the time of framing issues.
However, 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
34/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
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 of the
defendant’s debt and the plaintiff’s entitlement to recover the
amount payable by the defendant as prayed in this suit. In view
of the apprehension expressed by the plaintiff that the defendant
is likely to transfer its assets in India to defeat the plaintiff’s claim,
the plaintiff seeks an interim injunction against the defendant.
14. The defendant objected to the conclusiveness of the
Russian judgment on the ground that the Moscow Commercial
Court lacked jurisdiction because the agreements between the
parties contain an arbitration clause. Accordingly, arbitration
35/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
proceedings are pending between the parties before the
international arbitral tribunal. There is no dispute that the
defendant has participated in the arbitration proceedings for the
last three years. From the record, it appears that the plaintiff filed
the claim before the Moscow commercial court only after the
English court issued an order against the plaintiff. Therefore, in
view of the arbitration clause between the parties, if the Moscow
Commercial Court lacked jurisdiction, the conclusiveness and
presumption under Sections 13 and 14 of the CPC would not
apply. Except for the Russian judgment, the plaintiff does not rely
upon any other evidence in support of the claim to recover the
amount from the defendant. Therefore, it is necessary to
examine whether the Russian judgment can be accepted as
conclusive evidence at this pre-trial stage for considering the
grant of interim relief as prayed by the plaintiff.
15. Admittedly, the relevant clause no. 21.3.2 of the
agreements executed by the parties includes an arbitration
clause that excludes the jurisdiction of other courts. The
agreements between the parties show that they had also agreed
to the choice of English law as recorded in clause 26.3. The ICC
36/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
arbitral tribunal directed the plaintiff to withdraw Russian
th st
proceedings by order dated 11 November 2025. On 21
November 2025, the UK High Court issued an anti-suit injunction
th
against the plaintiff. Thereafter, on 10 December 2025, a
Russian court granted an anti-arbitration injunction against the
defendant and MTR. Admittedly, the basis of the dispute is the
EU sanctions, and the temporary suspension of the enforcement
of the agreement by the defendant and the subsequent
termination of the contract by the plaintiff.
16. In the appeal preferred by the defendant in the Russian
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
37/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
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
Federation shall include the following cases:
1) in disputes involving persons in respect of
whom restrictive measures are imposed by a
foreign state, state association and/or union
and/or state (interstate) institution of a foreign
state or state association and/or union;
2) on disputes between one Russian or foreign
person and another Russian or foreign person, if
the basis for such disputes are restrictive
measures imposed by a foreign state, state
association and/or union and/or state (interstate)
institution of a foreign state or state association
and/or union in relation to citizens of the Russian
Federation and Russian legal entities.
38/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
2. For the purposes of this Chapter, persons in respect of
whom restrictive measures are imposed by a foreign state,
state association and/or union and/or state (interstate)
institution of a foreign state or state association and/or
union shall include:
1) citizens of the Russian Federation, Russian
legal entities in respect of which restrictive
measures are imposed by a foreign state, state
association and/or union and/or state (interstate)
institution of a foreign state or state association
and/or union;
2) foreign legal entities in respect of which
restrictive measures are imposed by a foreign
state, state, association and/or union and/or
state (interstate) institution of a foreign state or
state, association and/or union and the basis for
the application of such measures are restrictive
measures imposed by foreign state, state
association and/or union and/or state (interstate)
institution of a foreign state or state association
and (or) union in relation to citizens of the
Russian Federation and Russian legal entities.
3. The persons specified in this Article (2) shall have the
right to:
1) apply for the resolution of the dispute to the
39/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
commercial court of the constituent entity of the
Russian Federation at the place of its location
or place of residence, provided that in the
proceedings of a foreign court or international
commercial arbitration located outside the
territory of the Russian Federation, there is no
dispute between the same persons, on the
same subject and on the same grounds;
2) apply in accordance with the procedure
provided for by Article 248.2 of this Code with
an application for an injunction on initiating or
continuing proceedings in 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
40/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
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 initiating or continuing
proceedings in a foreign court, international commercial
arbitration located outside the territory of the Russian
Federation.”
18. The said Article 248.1 also has exceptions and provisos.
On plain reading of the said Article 248.1 and the plaintiff’s
contentions, it appears that the plaintiff seeks to rely upon the
provision in the said Article which grants jurisdiction to the
Russian court in the event that there are obstacles to access to
justice in the courts outside the Russian jurisdiction. In view of
the facts of the present case as discussed in the above
paragraphs, it cannot be ascertained at this pre-trial stage
whether the disputes between the parties would fall within the
jurisdiction of the Moscow Commercial Court, despite the
arbitration proceedings pending between the parties in respect of
the same dispute.
41/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
19. Admittedly, the plaintiff has participated in the international
arbitration proceedings concerning the same dispute, which is
the subject matter of the Russian judgment relied upon in this
suit as conclusive evidence. Therefore, at this pre-trial stage, the
Russian judgment cannot be relied upon as conclusive evidence
as contemplated under Section 13 of the CPC. The presumption
regarding the competence of the court as contemplated under
Section 14 of the CPC cannot be applied at this pre-trial stage,
as from the record, prima facie, it appears that, in view of the
arbitration agreements between the parties and the ongoing
international arbitration, the competence of the Moscow
commercial court in entertaining the plaintiff’s claim is doubtful.
20. The defendant has also raised an objection with reference
to the exceptions provided under Section 13 of the CPC to
contend that the Russian court judgment cannot be accepted as
conclusive evidence, as the proceedings were conducted in
breach of the principles of natural justice. As detailed in the
above paragraphs, the defendant has pleaded that, 10 to 14
days prior to the final hearing, the plaintiff filed an amendment to
its claim containing over 20,000 pages and an expert report;
42/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
however, the defendant was not granted sufficient time to
respond and that the court refused to appoint an independent
expert as requested by MTR, but relied upon only the plaintiff's
expert. Therefore, at a pre-trial stage, it is difficult to accept the
Russian judgment as the absolute 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
43/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
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 to
set aside that award and for a declaration that the partnership
still subsisted. The partnership was governed by the Partnership
Act, 1932, of British India, and the award declared it should be
dissolved. The respondent’s defence was under Section 13 of
the CPC that the foreign judgment of the Indore High Court was
conclusive, as it directly adjudicated upon everything necessary
to hold that the award was valid. Hence, preliminary issues were
framed and decided by accepting the respondent's contention
that the Indore High Court’s judgment barred the present suit.
The suit was dismissed, which was confirmed by the appellate
bench of the Bombay High Court and approved by the Privy
Council.
23. It was held by the Privy Council that even if it were to be
assumed that the arbitration was subject to the law of British
India and that the High Court of Indore had erred in treating it as
44/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
governed by the law of Indore, the judgment would still be
conclusive unless it could be shown that the foreign court had
refused to recognise the law of British India. Arguments were
heard to the effect that even if the foreign judgment were
conclusive, it did not extend so far as to prevent the Courts of
British India from making the declaratory decree. The issue was
not further decided in view of the appellant's concession.
24. In Alcon Electronics , the proceedings arose from a petition
in India for execution of an order passed by an English Court.
The Apex Court held that a foreign judgment which has become
final and conclusive between the parties is not impeachable
either on facts or law except on limited grounds enunciated
under Section 13 of the CPC. It is further held that the
presumption under Section 14 of the CPC, that the foreign court
which passed the order is a court of competent jurisdiction, is
rebuttable.
25. In Sodhi Transport, the Apex Court held that when
presumption is conclusive, it obviates the production of any other
evidence to dislodge the conclusion to be drawn on proof of
certain facts, but when it is rebuttable, it only points out the party
45/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
on whom lies the duty of going forward with evidence on the fact
presumed.
26. In R. Viswanathan , the Apex Court held that competency in
the international sense means jurisdiction over the subject matter
of the controversy and over the parties, as recognised by the
rules of international law. It 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
46/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
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 prevent the defendant from
commencing proceedings in England in accordance with the
jurisdiction clause of the agreement. In the said decision, the
effect of Article 248.1 is discussed with reference to the
jurisdiction clause in the agreement between the parties. The
said decision pertains to the final reliefs of an anti-enforcement
injunction, with ancillary relief of an anti-suit injunction, to prevent
the recognition or enforcement of a series of judgments of the
Russian courts in any jurisdiction outside Russia. It was alleged
that the Russian proceedings were commenced and pursued in
breach of London Arbitration or exclusive English jurisdiction
agreements. Thus, the effect of Article 248.1 is discussed with
reference to the arbitration agreement between the parties, and
47/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
final anti-enforcement injunctive relief is granted.
29. The decision in Amar Singh ’s case is relied upon to
support the defendant's submissions that, in view of the plaintiff’s
conduct of suppression of facts regarding the anti-suit injunction
granted by the English court, the plaintiff would not be entitled to
any discretionary relief of injunction. In the said decision, the
Apex court held that, over the centuries, the courts frowned upon
litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the courts,
initiate proceedings without full disclosure of facts. It is held that
such litigants, who come with unclean hands, are not entitled to
any discretionary relief. The court further held that it is one of the
fundamental principles of jurisprudence that litigants must
observe total clarity and candour in their pleadings, especially
when it contains a prayer for injunction. Thus, it is held that a
prayer for injunction, which is an equitable remedy, must be
governed by the principles of “uberrima fides”,; meaning that a
litigant has a strict legal duty to plead with complete honesty and
transparency by voluntarily disclosing all the true and correct
facts.
30. In Swan Mills , this court held that in a suit for money
48/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
decree, when a temporary injunction is sought restraining the
defendant from transferring movable or immovable property, the
court has to be satisfied that the defendant is likely to dispose of
the property with intent to defeat the execution of the decree that
may be passed in favour of the plaintiff.
31. All other decisions relied upon by the learned senior
counsel 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
49/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
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 judgments that were never cited at the time of oral
arguments. Such practice consumes more time than is
necessary to decide such matters and also results in delays in
delivering judgments.
34. The legal principles discussed in the paragraphs above
make it clear that whether a foreign judgment is conclusive
evidence depends on the facts of each case. If objections are
raised to its conclusiveness and to the facts of the case, the
Indian court may find that the foreign judgment cannot be
accepted as conclusive evidence at the pre-trial stage; a
discretionary relief of an injunction cannot be granted. Unless the
Indian court is prima facie satisfied that none of the exceptions
under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13 apply and that the record
50/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
prima facie shows that the foreign court was competent to decide
the issue, and there is no other evidence in support of the money
claim, there would be no question of granting a discretionary
relief of injunction.
35. In the present case, in view of the arbitration agreements
between the parties and the plaintiff’s participation in the
international arbitration proceedings pertaining to the same claim
arising out of the same dispute, the competence of the Russian
court in entertaining the plaintiff’s claim is doubtful. Therefore,
the presumption under Section 14 of the CPC cannot be applied
at the pre-trial stage. As discussed in detail in the paragraphs
above, the defendant has raised serious objections in view of the
exceptions under Section 13 of the CPC to contend that the
Russian court’s judgment cannot be accepted as conclusive
evidence at this stage. From the record, it is seen that the
defendant has raised serious objections on the grounds that the
proceedings are founded on an incorrect view of international
law, and the proceedings also suffer from a breach of principles
of natural justice. Therefore, the conclusiveness of the Russian
judgment needs to be tested in the trial. At this stage, the
51/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
Russian judgment cannot be accepted as an absolute and
conclusive proof or evidence to support the plaintiff’s money
claim.
36. Merely saying that the defendant is likely to transfer its
funds out of India to defeat the plaintiff’s claim would not be
sufficient to grant an injunction when there is no prima facie
evidence to support the plaintiff's claim. In the present case, the
apprehension is expressed by referring to an assignment
agreement executed between the defendant and MTR. However,
the Russian court has already granted an injunction in respect of
the assignment agreement as pleaded by the plaintiff. The
defendant has produced sufficient material to show that the
orders passed by the English court were not produced on record
by the plaintiff. Admittedly, the plaintiff has participated in the
international arbitration proceedings in the UK. There is also no
dispute that the Russian judgment pertains to substantially the
same claim as that in the international arbitration proceedings in
which the plaintiff had also filed a counterclaim. Therefore, even
on the ground of the plaintiff’s conduct, I see no reason to grant
discretionary relief of injunction as prayed in the present
52/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::
12-IA-569-2026-COMS-6-2026.docx
application. In the absence of any prima facie case in favour of
the plaintiff, any irreparable loss shown by the plaintiff or the
balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff, I see no reason
to grant an order of injunction. The defendant has produced
sufficient material to show that the dispute between the parties is
the subject matter of the international arbitration proceedings,
and that the English court has issued various orders imposing an
anti-suit injunction. Hence, if any injunction is granted, the
defendant is likely to suffer irreparable loss and prejudice.
Hence, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the
defendant. The plaintiff has not made out a case for an interim
injunction.
37. For the reasons recorded above, the interim application is
dismissed.
[GAURI GODSE, J.]
53/53
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:00:00 :::