JUDGMENT :

Gauri Godse, J.

1. This suit is filed in terms of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) by relying upon the judgment dated 5th 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 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. 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 statement before this court on 13th 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.

4. Thereafter, on 20th January 2026, it was clarified that the statement made on behalf of the defendant, as recorded in paragraph 3 of the order dated 13th January 2026, is restricted to the defendant's actions in India only. Thereafter, on 11th February 2026, the arguments were concluded, and the application was closed for orders, and the earlier statement was continued.

5. On 12th 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 was allowed on 6th April 2026 to the extent of taking on record the judgment of the Russian Appellate Court.