### Foreign Judgment Contradicting Arbitration Agreement Fails Prima Facie Test for Interim Relief Under Section 13 CPC

The Plaintiff filed a suit under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking a decree for over Rs. 19,500 crores based on a Russian judgment dated December 5, 2025

The dispute arose from the termination of engineering contracts for a fertilizer complex in Russia following EU sanctions

While international arbitration (ICC Rules, London seat) was ongoing and after the Plaintiff had participated in it for three years, the Plaintiff initiated proceedings before the Moscow Commercial Court, citing Article 248.1 of the Russian Procedure Code which grants exclusive jurisdiction to Russian courts where sanctions create "obstacles to access to justice"

The Russian court granted a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff. In the interim, the English High Court and the ICC Tribunal issued anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions against the Plaintiff

The Plaintiff filed this application seeking to restrain the Defendant from disposing of assets in India

Section 13 of the CPC, which mandates that a foreign judgment is conclusive unless it falls under exceptions (a) through (f), such as lack of competent jurisdiction or breach of natural justice

Section 14 of the CPC provides a rebuttable presumption that a foreign court is of competent jurisdiction upon production of a certified copy

Alcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Celem S.a., holding that foreign judgments are not impeachable except on limited Section 13 grounds

R. Viswanathan v. Rukn-Ul-Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid, which defines "competence" in the international sense as jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties as recognized by international law

Amar Singh v. Union of India regarding the duty of full disclosure (uberrima fides)

Swan Mills Ltd. v. Dhirajlal regarding the necessity of proving intent to defeat a decree

The Court observed that while Sections 13 and 14 create a presumption of finality, this is not absolute at the pre-trial stage if the record suggests jurisdiction is "doubtful"

The Court found that since the Plaintiff participated in London-seated arbitration for three years without protest and only moved the Russian court after receiving adverse rulings in England, the Moscow court’s competence under Article 248.1 was prima facie questionable

the Defendant raised substantial arguments under Section 13(d) regarding a breach of natural justice, alleging they were given only six minutes to argue a complex 20,000-page amendment

The Court noted the Plaintiff’s failure to disclose the English anti-suit injunctions in the pleadings, violating the principle of uberrima fides

Because the Russian judgment’s conclusiveness is a matter for trial, it cannot serve as "absolute proof" for a massive money claim at the interim stage

It held that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case as the competence of the Moscow Court was in doubt given the valid arbitration agreement and ongoing ICC proceedings

The Court found the balance of convenience favoured the Defendant, noting that granting an injunction based on a contested foreign judgment while the Plaintiff was in breach of international anti-suit orders would cause irreparable loss to the Defendant. The earlier status quo statement made by the Defendant was discontinued.