INTRODUCTION
The concept of equity, which in legal terms translates to ‘justice’, is rooted in the idea of fairness. The concept emerged in medieval England as a corrective measure to deal with the inflexibility of common law courts. The establishment of the Court of Chancery marked the institutionalisation of equitable reliefs, which came as an aid when the law fell short. With its evolution over centuries, the concept is deeply embedded within the modern legal systems across the world.
Concurrently, with commercial advancements and globalisation, arbitration developed as a medium of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). It was realised that many times, mere monetary compensation was inadequate to prevent the irreparable loss or to protect contractual interests. To what extent can arbitral tribunals exercise equitable jurisdiction, and how do Indian and international arbitration regimes recognise, regulate, and enforce such equitable powers? This article explores these questions through an evolutionary trajectory of equitable reliefs.
CONCEPT AND NATURE OF EQUITABLE RELIEF
“After the Norman Conquest in 1066, medieval kings began to consolidate power and establish new institutions…… of writs, or royal orders, each of
This provided a specific remedy for a specific wrong. The system of writs became so highly formalised…. and …. too rigid to adequately achieve justice. In these cases, a further appeal to justice would have to be made directly to the king. This difficulty gave birth to a new kind of court, the court of equity, also known as the court of Chancery. Courts of equity were authorised to apply principles of equity based on many sources (such as Roman law and natural law) rather than to apply only the common law, to achieve a just outcome.”[1]
Thus, the concept of equitable relief is designed to provide justice when strict legal remedies fail to do so. On one hand, legal remedy is typically awarded in the form of damages, which are a monetary award paid to compensate for a loss or injury. It is intended to make the injured party whole again and to restore them to the position they would have been in if the injury had not occurred.[2] On the other hand, equitable reliefs are awarded in the form of damages, equitable remedies, etc. These are more flexible and are designed to provide a fair and just solution to a dispute.
In India, these doctrines were incorporated in the legal system during the colonial period, leading to the eventual codification in the Specific Relief Act, 1877, and later replaced by the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The doctrine is significantly applied by Indian courts in civil matters, thus significantly shaping the legal as well as arbitral landscape. Some of the common equitable reliefs include injunctions, specific performance, declaratory relief, rectification, and rescission.
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK IN INDIA
The legal foundation for equitable reliefs in arbitration in India is primarily grounded in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, read with the Specific Relief Act, 1963[3] (SRA), The Civil Procedure Code, 1908[4] And principles of contract law.
There is no express bar to granting equitable remedies under the Arbitration Act. Section 28(1)(a)of the Act mandates that “the arbitral tribunal shall decide the dispute submitted to arbitration in accordance with the substantive law …” which includes equitable principles recognised by the Indian laws. Along with this, Section 9 of the same Act allows parties to approach courts for securing the amount, interim injunction, interim measures of protection, etc. Added to it, after the amendments in 2015 and 2019, orders under Section 17 are enforceable as if they were orders of the court. This has strengthened the equitable authority of the arbitral tribunal.[5].
However, even after these reforms and the leverage given to the principle of equitable reliefs, the challenge persists, which shall be discussed ahead. Indian courts have clarified that the remedies based on SRA are not inherently barred from arbitral adjudication. Barring cases involving public interest, arbitrators have jurisdiction to apply provisions of the SRA, thus giving parties access to equitable justice within arbitral proceedings.
JUDICIAL APPROACH IN INDIA
The Supreme Court of India has held that interim injunctions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must align with the SRA, 1963[6]. In Om Prakash Aggarwal v. Raj Kumar Mittal,[7] It was held:
“The party who seeks specific performance, being an equitable relief, must come to the Court with clean hands.”
This highlights that while upholding the principles of equitable relief, the Indian courts have ensured that these remedies aren’t misused. Thus, the element of ‘clean hands’ must be ensured.
Also, in Adhunik Steels Ltd v. Orissa Manganese and Minerals Pvt. Ltd.,[8] The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held:
“When the grant of relief by way of injunction is, in general, governed by the Specific Relief Act… …it cannot certainly be inferred that Section 9 keeps out the substantive law relating to interim reliefs”, highlighting that equitable interim measures cannot exceed what could ultimately be granted in final relief.
The Court in MSTC Ltd. v. Jain Traders[9] Recognised the importance of Section 9 Interim reliefs when tribunal-issued orders lack immediate enforceability. It confirmed that the courts can come in to protect the subject matter until the tribunal can issue enforceable orders. Thus, the overall inclination of the judiciary is in favour of fairness embedded with justice.
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
- UNCITRAL MODEL LAW
The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration is a set of recommendations drafted by the UNCITRAL providing uniform rules on the enforcement of settlement agreements, along with addressing the right of a party to invoke a settlement agreement in a procedure.[10] Article 17[11] The UNCITRAL Model Law empowers the arbitral tribunals to grant interim measures, which may be in the form of equitable relief. The law being soft in nature allows flexibility while ensuring harmonisation in international arbitration.
Also, Article 28[12] of the ICC Rules of Arbitration 2021 state, “The arbitral tribunal may make the granting of any such measure subject to appropriate security being furnished by the requesting party.” This allows room for equitable relief in the form of giving orders, reasons, or an award as the arbitral tribunal considers appropriate.
CHALLENGES AND SUGGESTIONS
- JURISDICTIONAL CONSTRAINTS
Unlike courts with inherent jurisdiction, arbitral tribunals derive their powers solely from the arbitration agreement legislation. The issue that arises is that the reliefs of specific performance or injunction are possible only if they are statutorily permitted or expressly agreed upon by the parties. This prevents the arbitral tribunals from enforcing their orders suo motu. While broadening the scope for arbitral tribunals to enforce suo motu equitable reliefs could aid in more effectively addressing the issues at hand and enhance justice dispensation, such an expansion remains controversial, particularly in light of concerns relating to party autonomy and consent—the foundational principles of arbitration.
- LACK OF PROVISION OF EMERGENCY ARBITRATION
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Amazon.Com Nv Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Limited[13] Upheld the validity of an Emergency Arbitrator’s award issued under SIAC rule, thus reinforcing the pro-arbitration stance. However, there is an absence of statutory codification of Emergency Arbitration in Indian law. This points to the need for an amendment and thus formally incorporating the provision of Emergency Arbitration in the Indian laws.
- LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE
A key impediment to the effective enforcement of equitable reliefs in India is the dominance of ad hoc arbitration and the lack of robust institutional frameworks, resulting in delays in tribunal constitution and uncertainty in enforcement. The historical preference for ad hoc proceedings over institutional arbitration undermines procedural consistency and administrative support that could otherwise facilitate timely equitable relief.
CONCLUSION
Equitable Relief is a concept that evolved centuries ago in the UK to achieve fairness while dispensing justice. Today, it is deeply embedded in the global legislation. In the Indian context, the concept is primarily dealt with under the SRA, 1963, and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996[14]. These legislations codify the equitable relief concepts like injunctions, specific performance, and declaratory relief, among others. There are provisions for equitable relief in other jurisdictions as well as internationally – the UNCITRAL Model Law.[15] This can serve as a model for the gaps in the current legal landscape impacting the effective delivery. Even judicial approaches across the globe have been affirmative in upholding the principles of equitable relief.
Equitable reliefs in arbitration proceedings have ensured substantive justice beyond monetary compensation. It preserves the status quo while preventing further harm or irreparable loss to the aggrieved party. While ensuring efficiency and accountability, it brings in procedural flexibility, leading to fairness in decision-making. While the concept is gaining more prominence, there’s a need for institutional recognition and reforms in the Indian legal system. Moreover, with advancements in artificial intelligence and related technologies increasingly shaping commercial relationships and dispute resolution processes, equitable remedies are likely to gain heightened relevance.
Author(s) Name: Divyansh Joshi (Gujarat National Law University Silvassa Campus)
References:
[1]“ The Robbins Collection, ‘The Common Law and Civil Law Traditions (UC Berkeley School of Law 2010)’ <https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/CommonLawCivilLawTraditions.pdf> accessed 6 December 2025.”
[2]“Kaminsky Law, ‘What Is the Difference Between a Legal Remedy and an Equitable Remedy?’ (Kaminsky Law) < https://kaminskylaw.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-legal-remedy-and-an-equitable-remedy/ > accessed 6 December 2025.”
[3] Specific Relief Act 1877.
[4] Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
[5] Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, ss 9, 17, 28 (1) (a)
[6] Specific Relief Act 1963.
[7] Om Prakash Aggarwal v. Raj Kumar Mittal (2005) 11 SCC 33 (India).
[8] Adhunik Steels Ltd. v. Orissa Manganese & Minerals Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2007 SC 2563 (India).
[9] MSTC Ltd. v. Jain Traders AIR 2007 SC 692 (India).
[10] UNCITRAL, Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation with Guide to Enactment and Use 2002 UN Doc A/57/17 annexe I (24 June 2002) <https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/mediation/modellaw/commercial_conciliation> accessed 9 December 2025.
[11] UNCITRAL, Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration art 17 (21 June 1985), as amended by UN Doc A/61/17 (4 December 2006).
[12] ICC International Court of Arbitration, ICC Arbitration Rules 2021, art 28 (in force 1 January 2021).
[13] Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd AIR 2021 SC 3723 (India).
[14] ibid
[15] UNCITRAL, Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration UN Doc A/40/17 annexe I (21 June 1985), as amended by UN Doc A/61/17 annexe I (4 December 2006).
