Court Rules that Presumption of Competent Jurisdiction under Section 14 CPC Is Rebuttable Even at Interim Stage; Highlights Binding London-Seated ICC Arbitration Agreement and Breach of Natural Justice in Russian Proceedings
In a significant judgment dated October 29, 2026, the Bombay High Court (Division Bench) dismissed the Commercial Appeal filed by Limited Liability Company Eurochem North-West-2 (EuroChem), upholding the decision of the Single Judge that refused interim injunction sought in a suit founded on a Russian Arbitrazh Court judgment. The case involves a complex commercial dispute between EuroChem, a Russian company, and Tecnimont S.P.A., an Italian foreign company with offices in Mumbai, arising from contracts for construction of a fertiliser complex in Russia.
EuroChem sought recognition and enforcement of a final Russian judgment for recovery of damages amounting to over RUB 171 billion, based on the Arbitrazh Court, Moscow's decision dated December 5, 2025, which was upheld by the Ninth Arbitrazh Appeal Court on March 4, 2026. Pending the suit, EuroChem applied for an interim injunction restraining Tecnimont from disposing of assets in India. The Single Judge refused the injunction, holding that the Russian judgment could not be treated as conclusive evidence under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) at the interim stage due to serious doubts about the Moscow Court's jurisdiction and breaches of natural justice.
The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge's reasoning, extensively analyzing Sections 13 and 14 CPC relating to foreign judgments. While Section 14 CPC creates a rebuttable presumption that a foreign judgment is pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction upon production of a certified copy, Section 13 sets out exceptions where a foreign judgment is not conclusive, including lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice. The Court emphasized that this presumption is limited to jurisdictional competence and can be rebutted even at the interim stage, especially when the opposing party produces material raising substantial objections.
A pivotal aspect of the judgment is the binding arbitration agreement between the parties under the ICC Rules seated in London and governed by English law, which expressly excluded jurisdiction of courts of any other country. EuroChem had actively participated in the ICC arbitration for three years, including filing a counterclaim, before filing the suit based on the Russian judgment. The Moscow Arbitrazh Court had assumed exclusive jurisdiction invoking Article 248.1 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation (APC RF), based on sanctions imposed by the European Union and United Kingdom on Russian individuals and entities, including EuroChem's ultimate beneficial owner.
The Court found that the Russian Court failed to properly examine whether the arbitration agreement had become incapable of performance due to sanctions, and wrongly presumed obstacles to access to justice without concrete evidence. Furthermore, procedural irregularities were noted in the Russian proceedings, such as refusal to grant adjournments to respond to voluminous additional documents filed shortly before final hearing, disallowing the statement of defence as belated, and rejecting appointment of an independent expert, raising a prima facie case of breach of natural justice.
Reliance was placed on authoritative foreign judgments, including the Hong Kong High Court's decision in Bank A v. Bank B and the English High Court's judgment in Google LLC v. Nao Tsargrad Media, which similarly upheld the sanctity of arbitration agreements and rejected attempts to circumvent them through local courts, even when sanctions were involved.
The Court reiterated that interim injunctions under Order 39 Rule 1(b) CPC require satisfaction of the triple test - prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. Merely producing a foreign judgment, especially from a non-reciprocating territory like Russia, does not automatically establish conclusiveness or entitlement to interim relief. The appellant failed to show a prima facie case or irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favored the respondent, given the ongoing international arbitration and English court anti-suit injunctions.
The judgment also clarified the important distinction between foreign judgments from reciprocating and non-reciprocating territories. Judgments from reciprocating territories may be directly executed under Section 44A CPC, subject to exceptions under Section 13, with the burden on the judgment debtor to prove non-conclusiveness. Conversely, judgments from non-reciprocating territories require filing a fresh suit, with the burden on the plaintiff to establish conclusiveness, and the limited presumption under Section 14 applies only to jurisdictional competence and is rebuttable.
Ultimately, the Court found no error in the Single Judge's refusal to grant interim injunction and dismissed the appeal, refusing to stay the judgment. The ruling affirms the principle that foreign judgments, particularly from non-reciprocating jurisdictions, must meet stringent criteria before being treated as conclusive, and that courts retain discretion to assess jurisdictional competence and natural justice compliance at interim stages, particularly where arbitration agreements exist.
Bottom Line:
Foreign Judgment from non-reciprocating territory - Interim injunction sought in suit founded on Russian judgment - Presumption under Section 14 CPC as to competence of foreign court is limited and rebuttable even at interim stage - No presumption of conclusiveness under Section 13 CPC - Where parties had binding London-seated ICC arbitration agreement excluding other courts, and material showed serious doubt about competence of Moscow Arbitrazh Court and breach of natural justice, plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case for injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1(b) CPC - Refusal of injunction upheld.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 13, 14, 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 39 Rule 1(b) CPC; Article 248.1 of Arbitrazh Procedural Code of the Russian Federation; Section 21(1) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
