McDermott successfully advises Tecnimont S.p.A. as Bombay High Court upholds first instance dismissal of EuroChem €2bn asset freeze claim

International law firm McDermott Will & Schulte, alongside local counsel, Quillon Partners, advised Tecnimont S.p.A. (“Tecnimont”), a subsidiary of Maire S.p.A., in successfully opposing LLC EuroChem North-West-2’s (“EuroChem”) appeal of the Bombay High Court’s dismissal of an application seeking an interim injunction restraining Tecnimont from dissipating any of their assets in India up to €2.06 billion (RUB 171,115,220,555.00).

The underlying dispute between the parties concerns the construction of an ammonia and urea fertiliser plant near the Russian town of Kingisepp (the “K2 Project”), in respect of which EuroChem engaged Tecnimont (and its Russian subsidiary, MT Russia LLC (“MTR” and, together with Tecnimont, the “Contractors”)) as EPCC contractors. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the imposition of increased trade and financial sanctions measures, including the designation of the ultimate owner and controller of EuroChem, Mr Andrey Melnichenko, Tecnimont and MTR suspended their performance under the relevant contracts. EuroChem disputed the lawfulness of that suspension and terminated the contracts. The Contractors thereafter commenced London-seated arbitration under the ICC Rules (the “Arbitration”).

In August 2025, in breach of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate, EuroChem began an unlawful endeavour to transfer its dispute with the Contractors to its friendly Russian courts, availing itself of the infamous Lugovoy law (Articles 248.1 and 248.2 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedural Code), by replicating its counterclaims in the Arbitration. On 5 December 2025, and despite the Contractors having obtained relief from the Tribunal and the English courts restraining EuroChem’s unlawful Russian actions, the Moscow Arbitrazh Court entered judgment against the Contractors in the amount of approximately €2 billion (the “Russian Judgment”).

On 22 December 2025, in breach of the Tribunal’s subsequent anti-enforcement injunction, EuroChem issued proceedings in India seeking to enforce the Russian Judgment, including applying for an interim freezing injunction to restrain Tecnimont’s subsidiaries in the country from moving assets out of India.

On 8 June 2026, as reported in more detail by McDermott here, the Bombay High Court dismissed EuroChem’s application for an interim freezing order. In her judgment (the “Bombay Judgment”), Justice Gauri Godse noted on several occasions the existence of the underlying arbitration agreements between the parties, the various orders of the Tribunal and the English Court (which EuroChem had omitted to disclose) and the fact that EuroChem was actively participating in the Arbitration (finding that there is “no dispute that the Russian judgment pertains to substantially the same claim as that in the international arbitration proceedings in which [EuroChem] had also filed a counterclaim”). Based on these and other factors, the Judge found, amongst other things, that the “the competence of the Moscow commercial court in entertaining [EuroChem’s] claim [underlying the Russian Judgment] is doubtful”. This is ultimately an issue that will be determined conclusively at trial before the Bombay High Court, though the Judge did observe that there was an “absence of any prima facie case in favour of [EuroChem]”.

EuroChem appealed the Bombay Judgment.

On 29 October 2026, a two-judge panel consisting of Judge Bharati Dangre and Judge Manjjusha Deshpande, roundly dismissed the appeal (the “Bombay Appeal Judgment”), determining, in particular, that the presumption of conclusiveness of a foreign judgment (in line with the principle of comity of nations) is rebuttable at the pre-trial stage. Similar to section 4 of the UK Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933, a foreign judgment will not be enforceable by the Indian courts, amongst other things: “where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction” (section 13(a) of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure). Such principles embody central tenets of private international law.

The Bombay Appeal Judgment determined that Judge Godse at first instance had rightly doubted the legitimacy of the Russian Judgment, and further determined that the Russian Judgment was prima facie rendered in breach of natural justice. The following points from the Bombay Appeal Judgment bear particular emphasis:

• paragraph 14: “there is no dispute that the Russian Judgment pertains to substantially the same claim as in the arbitral proceedings, in which […] EuroChem had also filed a counterclaim”;
• paragraph 26: “EuroChem did not raise any objection [to the arbitral tribunal’s] jurisdiction and rather willingly participated and even appointed an Arbitrator, and it also presented a counter claim. For three years, the ICC Arbitration continued”;
• paragraph 31: “[…] we are not persuaded to hold that the Arbitrazh Court was justified in exercising its jurisdiction”, including because, prima facie, the Russian court had not properly applied Article 248.1. As the Bombay High Court also found, the: “[m]ere imposition of sanctions […] does not per se create obstacles in accessing justice, and in our view, [the] Arbitrazh Court has wrongly presumed that because sanctions are imposed, [EuroChem] which had approached it, had no means of accessing justice”;
• paragraph 34: “in our view, the Moscow Court presumed obstacles in accessing justice, simply on the basis that sanctions are imposed”;
• paragraph 38: there was evidence that the Russian Judgment had been rendered “in violation of principles of natural justice”, which is “prima facie indicative of a lopsided approach”. Such violation creates a separate basis for rebutting the presumption of conclusiveness of the Russian Judgment under section 13(d) of the Indian Civil Code of Procedure – “where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice”;
• paragraph 63: “[…] we are not satisfied with the submissions advanced on behalf of [EuroChem] and we find that the learned Judge has rightly treaded the path, when she has expressed that in the wake of the doubt that has been created whether the decision of the Moscow court was conclusive or not as in light of the existence of arbitration agreement between the parties, the parties had already resorted to ICC proceedings which were continued for last 3 years and on the date when the Moscow Court was approached the proceedings were still in progress”.

Accordingly, the Bombay Appeal Judgment concluded that: “[…] we do not find any scope for interference in the decision of the learned Single Judge, who has rightly opined that the judgment of the [Moscow] Arbitrazh Court [gives] rise to doubt and in [the] absence of [a] prima facie case […] being established by EuroChem [in respect of balance of convenience and irreparable harm], an injunction shall not automatically flow”.

The Bombay Appeal Judgment maintains the strong signal from the Indian courts that the Russian Lugovoy law will not be treated as conferring immutable protection on Russian parties impacted by sanctions. While those parties may be able to gain favourable treatment from the Russian Courts, Russian parties will not necessarily be able to benefit from judgments obtained from those Courts, particularly where those judgments have been obtained in breach of binding arbitration agreements and orders of the underlying tribunal and supervisory national court. Rather, central tenets of natural justice and international law should prevail, including, not least, the primacy of a party’s agreement to arbitrate. Accordingly, the Bombay Appeal Judgment (as with the Bombay Judgment it upheld) are significant and may well give some comfort to international operators with assets in India who are in dispute with Russian counterparties, particularly where that dispute is properly determinable outside of Russia and involves sanctions.

The Contractors in the Arbitration and parallel English court litigation are represented by the disputes team of McDermott Will & Schulte, led by partners Milo Molfa, Alfonso Annibale De Marco, Jack Thorne and David Kiefer, supported by associates James McGlaughlin, Jonathan Robb, Alison Morris, William Merry and William Evans in London, Mariafiore Miniussi in Milan, Maxime Delabarre in Paris, and Maria Cristina Rosales del Prado and Ignacio Zabala Alonso in Washington DC. The Maire entities in the Indian proceedings are represented byVikram Nankani SA and Quillon Partners, led by partner Alok Jain, supported by associates Samarth Saxena, Ria Garg and Mihir Beradia, acting with support from McDermott Will & Schulte UK LLP.