NATIONAL LAW

INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY
BHOPAL

L EGAL A NALYSIS OF THE M AXIM

‘E QUITY WILL NOT SUFFER A W RONG TO

BE WITHOUT R EMEDY ’

E QUITY T RUSTS AND S PECIFIC R ELIEF

R ESEARCH P ROJECT

T ENTH S EMESTER

2023-2024

S UBMITTED BY S UBMITTED TO
M ONISH R AGHUWANSHI D R . K RATI R AJORIA
2019 B.A.LL.B.16
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................1

Acknowledgment.......................................................................................................................2

Introduction................................................................................................................................3

Literature Review.......................................................................................................................5

Statement of Problem.................................................................................................................6

Hypothesis..................................................................................................................................6

Research Questions....................................................................................................................7

Research Objectives...................................................................................................................7

Research Methodology...............................................................................................................7

Meaning and Its Nature..............................................................................................................8

Evolution of this Maxim of Equity..........................................................................................11

Equity As A Concept For Equitable Intervention....................................................................13

The Need For Equitable Remedies..........................................................................................14

Contemporary Application.......................................................................................................16

Challenges In Applying The Maxim........................................................................................20

Conclusion and Suggestions....................................................................................................22

Bibliography.............................................................................................................................23

Page 1 of 25
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I have taken efforts in this work. However, it would not have been possible without the kind
support and help of many individuals. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of them.

I am highly indebted to Dr Krati Rajoria for their guidance and constant supervision as well
as for providing necessary information regarding the project and also for their support in
completing the project.

I would like to express my gratitude towards my parents for their kind co-operation and
encouragement which helped me in completing this project.

My cheers and appreciations also go to my colleagues in developing the project and people
who have willingly helped me out with their abilities.

Page 2 of 25
 INTRODUCTION

The maxim, "Equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy" is a cornerstone of the area
of equity and trust law. It expresses the fundamental principle that courts can look to equity
to ensure fairness and supply suitable remedies when a legal system's existing remedies fall
short of providing adequate justice or when implementing rigid legal norms would result in
injustice.

This research project aims to investigate and clarify the historical development and current
use of this dictum in the framework of equitable justice. The research starts out by exploring
the historical origins of equity, charting its progression from medieval England to its
inclusion into contemporary legal systems. The maxim emerges as a concept for equitable
intervention, highlighting the necessity for equitable principles to supplement the limitations
of common law remedies. The maxim recognizes that not all injustices can be sufficiently
rectified by the application of common law rules. There are instances where someone may be
harmed or injured, but relief may not be possible through the common law's accessible legal
remedies. In certain situations, equity enables the court to intervene and award remedies in
accordance with standards of justice, fairness, and conscience.1

In order to further explore the many contexts in which this concept is applicable, the research
focuses on specific equitable remedies that courts use to right wrongs when more
conventional legal remedies are insufficient or inappropriate. We will examine cases
involving breaches of trust, unconscionable behavior, and fiduciary duty to show how the
maxim supports the court's authority in providing equitable relief.

The research will also take into account the difficulties courts have in adopting the maxim,
such as how to strike a balance between the certainty and adaptability of equitable remedies.
The conflict between maintaining legal consistency and providing justice on a case-by-case
basis, as well as the possible danger of going too far with equitable intervention, will be
discussed.2

1
Richard Edwards and Nigel Stockwell, Trusts and Equity (7 ed., 2005), Pearson Education, p. 34.
2
J Martin, Hanbury and Martin's Modern Equity (19th edn Sweet and Maxwell 2012) p. 1024.

Page 3 of 25
The maxim “Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy” encapsulates two
fundamental principles:3

a. Ubi jus ibi remedium - where there is a right, there is a remedy: This principle
underscores the notion that whenever a legal right exists, the law provides a
corresponding remedy. In other words, the law will not leave a person without
recourse if their rights have been violated. This principle ensures that individuals have
access to justice and can seek redress for any harm or injustice they have suffered. It
reflects the core tenet of equity to provide remedies where the common law falls short
or is inadequate.

b. Injuria Sine Damno - Injury without damage: This principle recognizes that certain
wrongs may cause injury or harm to an individual's legal rights even if there is no
actual financial loss or damage suffered. In other words, the law may recognize and
address injuries that occur without resulting in tangible harm. This principle allows
equity to intervene in cases where there is a breach of legal rights, regardless of
whether there is monetary loss involved.

These principles collectively cover wrongs that are suitable for judicial enforcement but may
not be adequately addressed under the common law due to defects or limitations. Equity,
guided by these principles, seeks to ensure that individuals are not left without a remedy
when their rights are violated, even if such violations do not fit neatly within the framework
of traditional legal remedies. It emphasizes the role of equity in providing fairness, justice,
and redress for all parties involved in legal disputes.

The research will come to its conclusion regarding the maxim as a guiding concept in the law
of equity and trust. It will highlight the need to strike a balance between equitable
intervention and the preservation of legal consistency, reiterating equity's role in upholding
fairness, justice, and rectification in a legal environment that is always changing. 4

3
Gray Watt, Trusts and Equity, (9th ed. Oxford University Press, 2022) p. 5.
4
Jeffrey Hackney, Understanding Equity and Trusts, (Fontana, 1987) p. 29.

Page 4 of 25
 LITERATURE REVIEW

1. J. Martin, Hanbury and Martin's Modern Equity Law

It serves as a cornerstone text in the realm of equity jurisprudence, providing
comprehensive insights into the principles, doctrines, and case law that shape modern
equitable remedies. In the context of the maxim "Equity will not suffer a wrong
without a remedy," this literature offers invaluable analysis and interpretation of how
equity operates to rectify injustices where common law remedies fall short. Martin's
exposition delves into the historical development of equity, tracing its evolution from
its origins in the Court of Chancery to its contemporary applications in diverse legal
contexts. The book navigates through various equitable doctrines, elucidating how
courts apply equitable principles to ensure fairness and justice in legal proceedings.

2. Jeffrey Hackney, Understanding Equity and Trusts

The work delves into the fundamental principles of equity, elucidating the rationale
behind the maxim and its implications for equitable remedies. By examining seminal
cases and scholarly commentary, the book sheds light on the intricate interplay
between equity and common law, highlighting instances where equitable remedies are
necessary to address injustices that cannot be adequately remedied through traditional
legal mechanisms. Moreover, its exploration of trust law enriches the discourse on
equitable principles, offering readers a nuanced understanding of how trusts serve as
vehicles for achieving equitable outcomes.

3. George T. Bispham, The Principle of Equity

The literature offers a comprehensive review of the various facets of equity,
including its role in rectifying injustices, providing equitable remedies, and
promoting fairness and conscience in legal proceedings. By drawing upon a wealth
of case law, statutory provisions, and scholarly commentary, it illuminates the
complex interplay between equity and common law, shedding light on how equity
operates as a corrective mechanism to address shortcomings in traditional legal
remedies. Moreover, its work delves into the practical implications of equity in

Page 5 of 25
 diverse legal contexts, offering valuable insights for practitioners, scholars, and
students alike.
4. Gray Watt, Trusts and Equity
It is a comprehensive exploration of the intricate legal concepts surrounding trusts
and equity. This seminal work provides a thorough analysis of the principles,
doctrines, and case law that underpin the law of trusts and equity. The expertise of
the author in the field shines through in this authoritative text, offering readers a
wealth of insights into the complexities of trust law.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The application of strict rule of common Law led to hardship, inconvenience,

injustice and unfairness in the administration of justice. In the light of this, it is
pertinent to research on how the principle of Equity Will Not Suffer a Wrong to be without a
Remedy can reduce the harshness and injustices from the application of strict rule of common
law.

HYPOTHESIS

On the basis of the initial research, it is presumed that:

a) The maxim was applied by equity under its original jurisdiction where the application
of common law has led to the denial of a right.
b) This maxim should not be interpreted to mean that equity remedied every
wrong rather it means that in certain circumstances where the common law did
not recognize a right or provide a remedy, equity will provide a remedy
provided such can be remedied.
c) This maxim will not apply in circumstances such as unfair trade competition, where
equity does not provide a remedy and it is limited by what is unrealistic, practicable
and convenient to the court.

Page 6 of 25
 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What is the meaning and nature of the maxim Equity shall not suffer a wrong
without a remedy?
2. How did this maxim evolve as a concept and what is its historical development?
3. How does this maxim Equity shall not suffer a wrong without a remedy is applied in
recent years and what are the ways in which it ensures fairness and justice?
4. What are the challenges in its application and solutions to redress the same?

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The main objectives of this study are:

1. To study the meaning, nature and essence of the maxim Equity shall not suffer a
wrong without a remedy;
2. To throw light on this maxim as a concept and to know it historical development,
evolution;
3. To understand the contemporary application of this maxim and ways of its
application.
4. To find the challenges in its application in providing justice and solutions to redress
the challenges.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The method of study employed in this work is doctrinal method of study.

Page 7 of 25
 MEANING AND ITS NATURE

The maxim “Equity shall not suffer a wrong without a remedy” encapsulates a fundamental
principle in the realm of trust and equity law. It asserts that in the absence of adequate
remedies provided by common law, equity will intervene to uphold rights and rectify wrongs.
This principle serves as the bedrock of equity jurisdiction, emphasizing the imperative of
addressing injustices through suitable remedies within the legal system.5

Within the fields of trust and equity law, this maxim holds significant importance, capturing
the essence of equity's role in delivering justice, fairness, and appropriate remedies where the
existing legal framework falls short. It underscores the notion that the judicial system must
not tolerate or overlook injustices in its pursuit of justice, affirming equity's capacity to
provide remedies when common law remedies are insufficient or when adherence to strict
legal standards would result in injustice.

At its core, the maxim operates as a guiding principle for judges, attorneys, and the broader
legal community, reminding them of equity's value in rectifying wrongs. It emphasizes the
necessity for a legal system that is adaptable and flexible, capable of addressing complex and
unique circumstances where common law remedies may prove inadequate. The application of
this maxim extends across various facets of the legal system, particularly within trust and
equity law. Equity's ability to offer individualized and flexible remedies often supplements
and modifies common law remedies, especially in cases involving fiduciary duty,
unconscionable behavior, or breaches of trust. Furthermore, the maxim underscores the
importance of fairness, conscience, and justice, highlighting equity's role in ensuring that
legal decisions are not only legally correct but also just and equitable.6

The Latin phrase “Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium” meaning "where there is a right, there is a
remedy," further elucidates this maxim. It signifies that the granting of a right under common
law inherently entails the provision of a corresponding remedy for its violation, emphasizing
the interconnectedness of rights and remedies within the legal system.7

5
George T. Bispham, The principle of Equity vol. 1-2(Joseph D. McCoy 11th ed. 1931).
6
R.E. Megarry, Snell’s Principles of Equity Vol. 2 (23rd ed. 1947).
7
Glanville Williams, Learning the Law (Delhi: University Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Lt, 2009) pp. 24-29.

Page 8 of 25
Specific performance and injunctions are additional forms of remedies available under the
Law of Equity, exemplified by cases like Ashby v. White8 and Patterson v. Murphy, which
underscore the entitlement to a remedy when a right is granted. Such cases reinforce the
maxim's underlying principle of ensuring that where rights exist, remedies must be available
to enforce them.9

In Cohen v. Roche,10 the principle of specific performance was not applied to a contract for
Hepplewhite chairs, as the chairs were deemed not rare or unique enough to warrant such a
remedy. Instead, damages were awarded as a substitute. This case highlights the discretion
exercised by courts in determining the appropriateness of specific remedies, such as specific
performance, based on the unique circumstances of each case.

However, in Beswick v. Beswick,11 the House of Lords granted specific performance for a
contract to pay money, which involved the transfer of a coal business from the uncle to his
nephew in exchange for the nephew's promise to make weekly payments to the uncle's widow
after his death. Specific performance was deemed the most equitable remedy in this case
because damages would not have been adequate to redress the harm caused. The contractual
arrangement involved a unique and ongoing obligation that could not be adequately
compensated with a lump sum payment. Therefore, the court ordered the nephew to fulfill his
promise to make weekly payments of £5 for life to the widow. This decision contrasts with
Cohen case, where specific performance was not granted for a contract involving the sale of
Hepplewhite chairs because they were deemed not rare or unique enough to warrant such a
remedy. In Cohen case, damages were deemed an appropriate remedy instead.

The contrast between Beswick v. Beswick and Cohen v. Roche highlights the discretionary
nature of equitable remedies and the importance of considering the specific circumstances of
each case. While specific performance was deemed equitable and appropriate in Beswick
case due to the ongoing nature of the contractual obligation and the inadequacy of damages,
it was not granted in Cohen case because the subject matter of the contract was not
considered unique enough to warrant such a remedy.12

In essence, the maxim serves as a testament to the adaptability of equitable principles and
their capacity to provide relief and remedies aligned with the principles of justice and fairness
8
(1703) 92 ER 126.
9
Patterson v. Murphy, 1978 ILRM 85.
10
[1927] 1 KB 169.
11
[1967] UKHL 2.
12
C.M RAO, law of Injunctions (Delhi: University Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Lt, 2007),445-667

Page 9 of 25
within the context of equity and trust law. By directing courts to intervene when common law
remedies are inadequate, it contributes to the pursuit of fair outcomes within the legal system.

EVOLUTION OF THIS MAXIM OF EQUITY

Page 10 of 25
Equity, as a foundational principle in legal systems, has traditionally served the purpose of
providing remedies where monetary compensation alone is insufficient to address the injury
suffered by a party. This core tenet of equity underscores its role in seeking alternative
solutions to legal disputes beyond mere financial restitution. Essentially, this doctrine
encapsulates the notion that individuals seeking relief from equity must be provided with a
remedy that adequately addresses their grievances.13

The essence of this doctrine lies in equity's inherent flexibility and ability to tailor remedies
to fit the unique circumstances of each case. Unlike common law, which often relies on
monetary damages as the primary form of redress, equity recognizes that certain injuries
cannot be fully compensated for through financial means alone. As such, equity possesses the
authority to devise alternative remedies that aim to restore fairness and equity in situations
where monetary compensation falls short.

For instance, in cases where a party seeks relief from a breach of contract, equity may go
beyond awarding damages and instead grant specific performance, compelling the breaching
party to fulfill their contractual obligations. Similarly, in matters of property disputes or trust
arrangements, equity may issue injunctions or orders for the transfer of assets to ensure that
justice is served in a manner that transcends monetary considerations.14

In its early history, equity, administered by the court of chancery, emerged to address legal
disputes for which there were no established common law writs or forms of action. This was
primarily due to the limitations of the common law system, which often lacked flexibility and
failed to provide remedies for certain types of wrongs. As a result, equity developed to fill the
gaps in legal practice and provide relief in cases where common law remedies were
unavailable.15

The maxim “nullus recedat a curia cancellariae sine remedio” (nobody will leave the
chancellor's court without a remedy) reflects this historical context, emphasizing equity's
commitment to ensuring that justice is served and grievances are addressed. In essence,
equity sought to remedy injustices that could not be adequately addressed through common
law procedures alone.

13
Karnwal Megha, “Law of Equity”, available at: http://jurisonline.in/2008/11/law-of-equity/ accessed on 31
March 2024.
14
R.E. Megarry, Snell’s Principles of Equity, Vol. 2 (23rd ed. 1947).
15
Joseph Story, Alfred Edward Randell, Story on Equity (third English ed., 1920), Sweet & Maxwell. p. 34.

Page 11 of 25
During this period, the court of chancery exercised considerable creativity in devising
remedies to address the shortcomings of the common law. This often involved departing from
rigid legal forms and procedures to deliver fair and equitable outcomes. However, it is
important to note that the innovative approach of equity was not simply aimed at
circumventing the common law but rather at complementing its limitations and providing
remedies where none existed.16

The House of Lords, recognizing the inadequacy of the label “breach of confidence,” has
acknowledged that the essence of the tort is better encapsulated as the misuse of private
information. This shift in perspective was evident in the case of Campbell v. MGN17 (2004).
However, this message appears to have been overlooked in at least one case in the Douglas v
Hello18 litigation. It is argued that providing a remedy for celebrities who are secretly
photographed should be a matter for the common law rather than equity.

The principle “ubi jus ibi remedium” where there is a right, there is a remedy, is often
restated in legal contexts. In equity, this maxim is applied in an orderly manner, not meaning
that anything goes. Instead, it calls for recognized remedies for well-established wrongs that
invade property rights or personal or civil rights, which the law deems actionable. Courts do
not entertain complaints about every minor annoyance or immoral act. When the law grants a
right, it also provides a remedy that can be granted in equity. However, equity will not supply
a cause of action where none exists in the court of law.19

Equitable remedies are not to be taken too literally; they are geared towards addressing
unconscionable behavior and operate only if that behavior constitutes legal wrongdoing. As
exemplified in Dubey v. HM Revenue & Customs,20 sympathy alone cannot entitle
individuals to compensation if they are not legally entitled to it. The underlying rationale of
this rule is that equity intervenes to remedy a legal wrong only when the common law is
inadequate to do so. Thus, equity operates within the boundaries of established legal
principles and aims to provide relief where the common law falls short.

16
Historical Outlines of Equity, available at: http://www.unlockingthelaw.co.uk/samples/trusts_ch01.pdf
accessed on 31 March 2024.
17
[2004] UKHL 22.
18
[2005] EWCA Civ 595.
19
Manishankar Hargovan v. Trikam Narsi, (1867) 5 B.H.C.B.
20
[2005] EWCA Civ 595.

Page 12 of 25
 EQUITY AS A CONCEPT FOR EQUITABLE INTERVENTION

Equity, as a philosophical and legal notion, plays a crucial role in the administration of justice
by stepping in where the implementation of common law remedies may lead to injustice or
prove insufficient. This idea encompasses several important components that define the
essence and function of equity within the legal system.

Flexibility and Discretion are foundational qualities of equity, allowing courts to tailor
remedies to fit the unique circumstances of each case. This adaptability is particularly vital in
situations where common law remedies would be overly strict or inappropriate, ensuring that
justice is served in a manner that is fair and equitable.

Fairness and Conscience are central to the concept of equity, intertwining the notions of
equity and justice. Equity aims to achieve just outcomes by considering not only the strict
application of legal principles but also the moral and ethical implications of a case. It
intervenes to correct injustices that may arise from a rigid application of the law, ensuring
that fairness prevails.21

Further, equity's role in stopping Unconscionable Behavior is significant, as it can provide

remedies to halt unfair conduct where one party exploits a contractual or fiduciary
relationship to the detriment of another. By offering specific remedies such as injunctions or
orders for specific performance, equity acts as a safeguard against exploitation and injustice.

“Equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy” serves as a guiding principle, highlighting
the necessity of equity intervention in various circumstances. It underscores the importance
of addressing inadequacies in the common law and offering appropriate solutions in complex
or ethically sensitive cases. Cases requiring Moral and Ethical Considerations benefit from
equity's intervention, as it allows judges to take into account broader ethical considerations
that may not be adequately addressed by strict adherence to legal principles alone. This
flexibility ensures that justice is achieved in accordance with societal values and ethical
norms. Thus, equity serves as a mechanism for ensuring justice, providing specific remedies,
flexibility, and fairness within the legal system.22

21
Pennington v Waine [2002] 4 All ER 215, pp. 63-66.
22
J Martin, Hanbury and Martin's Modern Equity, (19th edn Sweet and Maxwell 2012) ch 1.

Page 13 of 25
 THE NEED FOR EQUITABLE REMEDIES

Equitable remedies play a vital role within the framework of equity and trust law, addressing
specific inequities, unfairness, or unique situations that cannot be adequately remedied by
common law remedies alone. When the strict application of common law standards proves
insufficient, equitable remedies provide courts with the necessary tools to achieve justice,
fairness, and conscience in legal proceedings.

Common law remedies primarily aim to compensate for damages through monetary
compensation. However, there are instances where monetary damages alone are inadequate to
fully rectify a mistake or fairly compensate a party for their loss. In such cases, equitable
remedies become indispensable in providing more appropriate relief. Specific Performance is
one such equitable remedy available in contract law. Unlike monetary damages, specific
performance compels a party to fulfill their contractual obligations. This remedy is
particularly crucial when the subject matter of the contract is unique, and monetary
compensation cannot adequately restore the harmed party to their rightful position.

Equity also allows for the issuance of Injunctions, which are orders aimed at halting specific
behaviors or activities. In situations where common law remedies may not act swiftly enough
to prevent harm, such as in cases involving threats to violate restrictive covenants, injunctions
serve as a vital tool to protect the rights of the aggrieved party. 23 Cases involving the Breach
of Fiduciary Obligation frequently require equitable remedies, especially concerning trustees
or corporate directors. Equity ensures that fiduciaries act in the best interests of their
beneficiaries. In instances where fiduciaries fail to do so, equitable remedies are available to
safeguard the interests of the beneficiaries and rectify any breaches of trust.

Equity also intervenes to rectify Unconscionable Behavior, where one party unfairly exploits
or takes advantage of another. In such cases, equity offers remedies to halt the wrongful
behavior and restore justice. These remedies are essential in upholding ethical standards and
ensuring fairness in legal proceedings. In conclusion, equitable remedies play a crucial role in
supplementing common law remedies by providing tailored solutions to address specific
injustices or inequities. Whether through specific performance, injunctions, or remedies for

23
George T. Bispham, The principle of Equity vol. 1-2(Joseph D. McCoy 11th ed. 1931).

Page 14 of 25
breach of fiduciary obligation, equity ensures that justice is upheld, and fairness prevails in
the legal system.

The necessity of equitable remedies is underscored by several notable case laws, each
highlighting unique circumstances where common law remedies alone would have been
insufficient to achieve adequate relief, justice, and fairness for the parties involved. These
seminal instances serve as compelling examples of equity's crucial role in addressing
complex legal issues and ensuring just outcomes.

In Fry v. Lane (1888),24 specific performance was awarded as an equitable remedy when the
defendant attempted to sell property to a third party after making a promise to the plaintiff.
This case illustrates a scenario where damages remedies under common law would not have
been effective, emphasizing the importance of equitable remedies in providing tailored relief
in unique situations. Equity played a pivotal role in resolving the breach of fiduciary duty in
Blake v. Attorney General (2000).25 Here, the equity intervened to prevent breach of duty,
showcasing its ability to address breaches of trust and uphold ethical standards.

Pinnel's Case (1602)26 exemplifies equity's function in preserving justice when there is a
change to an existing legal requirement. The court ruled that a party should be held to their
agreement if they accept a lesser amount as full settlement of a debt, highlighting equity's
role in ensuring the enforcement of agreements and upholding fairness.

Another significant example is Lumley v. Wagner (1852),27 where equity employed

injunctions to halt unethical behavior. Despite the defendant's agreement not to perform for
another theatre, she was prohibited from doing so. This case demonstrates equity's power to
intervene and prevent wrongful conduct, safeguarding the rights of the aggrieved party. These
seminal instances collectively underscore the urgent necessity of equitable remedies in
various situations where common law remedies would have been inadequate. They showcase
equity's flexibility and adaptability in addressing intricate legal issues and providing tailored
relief to ensure justice and fairness for all parties involved. As such, these cases serve as
compelling examples of equity's indispensable role within the legal system.

24
(1888) 40 ChD 312.
25
[1982] I.R. 117.
26
[1558-1774] All ER Rep 612.
27
[1852] EWHC (Ch) J96.

Page 15 of 25
 CONTEMPORARY APPLICATION

The John Doe orders are typical injunctive reliefs granted by the courts to prevent harm
against plaintiffs. Injunctions are equitable remedies, which cannot be demanded as a matter
of right, rather are available only when parties have no adequate legal remedies and thus,
imply that John Doe orders also fall within the purview of equity principles.

The application of John Doe orders in cases of infringement also reflects the role of principle
of Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy in protecting the rights of those
harmed and ensuring the availability of appropriate relief. Since a John Doe order functions
as a type of injunction, it must meet the same requirements as a temporary injunction,
including demonstrating a prima facie case, balancing the convenience of both parties,
showing irreparable loss, and maintaining the anonymity of the defendant.

a. Sony Pictures Network India Pvt. Ltd. v. www.sportsala.tv28

The recent Delhi High Court order in Sony Pictures v. Sportsala TV, commonly known as the
Ashok Kumar or John Doe order, highlights the application of equitable principles in granting
injunctive relief. These orders, issued ex parte, aim to prevent harm to plaintiffs by
restraining defendants from activities like streaming or broadcasting copyrighted content.
Rooted in principles of fairness and justice, equitable remedies like injunctions are sought
when legal remedies are inadequate. The issuance of John Doe orders underscores the court's
commitment to prevent irreparable harm, aligning with equity's goal of providing effective
relief where monetary damages fall short. However, the court must ensure a balance between
protecting plaintiffs' rights and safeguarding defendants' interests, reflecting the judicious
application of equitable principles in addressing copyright infringement.

b. Taj Television v. Rajan Mandal29

In this landmark case, the primary objective behind granting the John Doe order was to
prevent the destruction of evidence. The court recognized the urgency of the situation and
28
CS (COMM) 28/9/2021.
29
[2003] FSR 22.

Page 16 of 25
issued the injunction ex parte to preserve crucial evidence related to copyright infringement.
The rationale behind this decision was to ensure that the plaintiff's rights were protected by
preventing the defendants from tampering with or destroying evidence that could be vital to
the case. This case set a precedent for the use of John Doe orders in situations where there is
a risk of evidence being compromised or destroyed, emphasizing the court's commitment to
upholding the principles of equity and fairness.

c. Eros International v. BSNL30

Following the Taj Television case, the Eros International v. BSNL case introduced certain
safeguards to prevent the potential misuse of John Doe orders. The court recognized the need
to balance the interests of both parties and imposed limitations on the issuance of such orders.
The rationale behind these safeguards was to ensure that John Doe orders were not misused
by plaintiffs to unfairly target defendants or stifle legitimate content. By listing specific
criteria and requirements for granting injunctions, the court aimed to safeguard against abuse
and uphold the principles of equity and justice.

d. 7 Khoon Maaf

In the 7 Khoon Maaf case, the court's decision to grant injunctions based solely on a
demonstration of copyright by the plaintiff set a concerning precedent. The court appeared to
lower the threshold for granting injunctions, making it easier for plaintiffs to obtain relief
without fully substantiating their claims. By neglecting the requirement for the plaintiff to
identify specific content associated with the defendants, the court overlooked crucial
safeguards against abuse and misuse of John Doe orders. This departure from established
principles raised concerns about the potential for unfettered demands from plaintiffs and the
erosion of defendants' rights.

e. Star v. Ujjwal31

The Star v. Ujjwal case further exacerbated concerns regarding the abuse of John Doe orders
by advocating for the blocking of entire websites rather than specific URLs. This approach
30
2016 SCC OnLine Bom 10315.
31
CS(OS) No.2243 of 2014.

Page 17 of 25
opened the door to the blocking of legitimate content on websites without sufficient
justification, raising serious questions about freedom of expression and access to information.
The court's decision to prioritize the interests of plaintiffs over the broader implications for
online freedom highlighted the need for stricter scrutiny and adherence to equitable principles
in granting injunctive relief. Overall, these cases underscore the importance of maintaining a
careful balance between protecting intellectual property rights and safeguarding fundamental
rights and freedoms.

f. Namdeo Lokman Lodhi v. Narmadabai and Others32

The basic question is what the essence of equity in the matter of determination of a lease on
the grounds of forfeiture caused by the breach of a condition is is. The court held that it must
apply the principles of justice, equity and good conscience to transactions which come up
before them for determination even though the statutory provisions of the Transfer of
Property Act are not made applicable to these transactions.

Similarly, in quia timet actions, where there is a fear of future harm, courts require evidence
of imminent danger and active steps taken by the defendant to cause irreparable harm.
However, in cases like Intel Corporations, courts have held that plaintiffs need not wait for
the defendant to activate its operations before seeking relief. This approach allows for
preemptive action to prevent potential harm before it occurs.

However, there are instances where equity has less or no role to play as delineated by
Supreme Court in several of its decision.

g. CC(I), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Co.33

In this case, a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court extensively discussed the concept of
equity's absence in interpreting taxing statutes. Citing from Justice G.P. Singh’s ‘The
Principles of Statutory Interpretation’, the court emphasized that within the realm of taxation,
considerations of hardship or equity are deemed irrelevant in determining tax eligibility. The
court reaffirmed the principle that it is the prerogative of the legislature to establish criteria
for taxation, as established in the precedent of Kapil Mohan v. CIT.34

32
1953 AIR 228.
33
(2018) 9 SCC 1.
34
(1999) 1 SCC 430.

Page 18 of 25
h. Vodafone International Holdings v. Union Of India & Anr35

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) recently ruled that India's retrospective taxation
amendments, specifically in the Vodafone case, breached the "fair and equitable treatment"
provision of the India-Netherlands Bilateral Investment Treaty. This decision highlights the
significance of international agreements in governing taxation and investment protection,
indicating potential repercussions for tax enforcement actions by the Indian Government.
Despite the ruling, the dispute remains ongoing, as the Indian Government has the option to
challenge the decision before the High Court of Singapore, underscoring the complexities of
resolving taxation disputes within the framework of international law and bilateral
agreements.

Nevertheless, there is a growing concern that the interests of the plaintiff are sometimes given
precedence over the principles of equity. In many cases of infringement, John Doe orders are
being used as a routine solution rather than an extraordinary remedy. This trend suggests that
the balance between protecting the rights of the plaintiff and ensuring equitable relief may be
shifting, raising questions about the appropriate use of John Doe orders and the need to
maintain equity's fundamental principles.

CHALLENGES IN APPLYING THE MAXIM

35
2012 1 SCR 573.

Page 19 of 25
While the maxim "Equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy" serves as a cornerstone
in the study of trust and equity law, its practical implementation faces several challenges due
to the inherent conflict between the need for legal consistency and the pursuit of justice
ideals. These difficulties highlight the delicate balance that courts must strike in applying
equitable remedies while upholding legal principles and ensuring fairness for all parties
involved. The following are some key challenges in putting this guideline into practice:

Maintaining Legal Uniformity while Ensuring Case-Specific Justice presents a significant

challenge. Equity aims to provide personalized remedies tailored to each case's unique
circumstances, which may deviate from established legal principles. However, this latitude
may lead to inconsistent legal rulings, posing challenges to the predictability and uniformity
of the legal system.36

The Possibility of Overreach is another concern, as discretionary equitable remedies may be

susceptible to the influence of personal opinions or biases of judges. To prevent overreach,
legal systems must incorporate checks and balances, emphasizing the importance of strong
legal reasoning and adherence to principles of equality and fairness.

Contravention of Statutory Law may arise when equitable principles conflict with statutory
legislation or regulations. Courts may face difficult decisions in such cases, balancing the
principles of equity with statutory requirements. Efforts to harmonize equity and statutory
law are essential to ensure consistency and fairness in legal rulings.

The Possibility of Complexity and Delay is inherent in certain equitable remedies, such as
specific performance and injunctions, which may necessitate a more involved judicial process
compared to monetary damages awards. Courts must weigh the advantages of equity against
the potential delays and complications it may cause, striving to strike a balance between
prompt justice and thorough consideration of cases.

Equitable Precedent Consistency poses challenges in maintaining uniformity in the

application of equitable principles over time. Diverse interpretations of prior decisions by
judges may lead to inconsistency in the implementation of equity. To address this, judges
must receive adequate training and possess a thorough understanding of equitable principles
and precedents.

36
J Martin, Hanbury and Martin's Modern Equity, (19th edn Sweet and Maxwell 2012) ch 1.

Page 20 of 25
Lastly, the Possibility of Unpredictability arises due to the discretionary nature of equity,
making it difficult for parties to predict the outcome of a legal dispute. To mitigate
uncertainty, courts should provide transparent explanations for their equitable rulings,
ensuring clarity and understanding for all parties involved.

In conclusion, while the maxim "Equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy"
underscores the importance of equitable intervention in achieving justice, its practical
application is fraught with challenges. Addressing these difficulties requires thoughtful
consideration, adherence to legal principles, and effective judicial oversight to strike a
balance between legal consistency and the pursuit of fairness, flexibility, and conscience
within the legal system.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

Page 21 of 25
In conclusion, the maxim "equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy" stands as a
fundamental principle in equity and trust law, highlighting the pivotal role of equity in
ensuring justice, fairness, and appropriate remedies. It serves as a guiding beacon for the
legal community, signaling that injustices should never go unaddressed if there is a means to
rectify them.

The historical evolution of equity, originating in medieval England to address deficiencies in

common law, reflects the legal system's commitment to change, administer justice, and
correct injustices. As a concept guiding equitable action, equity embodies adaptability,
justice, and targeted remedies, intervening when common law remedies prove inadequate or
when moral and ethical considerations come into play. Examples from legal history
underscore the indispensable role of equity in resolving complex and unique circumstances.

However, there are challenges in translating the maxim and principles of equity into practice.
Legal practitioners and judges grapple with complexities such as managing delays, navigating
conflicts with statutory law, avoiding overreach, and balancing case-specific justice with the
need for legal uniformity. Despite these hurdles, the legal system remains committed to
pursuing justice and equity, guided by the maxim and principles of equity.

The legacy of equity endures as a constant reminder of the importance of upholding ideals of
justice and fairness within the legal system while adapting to evolving societal norms. The
maxim "equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy" encapsulates the legal system's
steadfast dedication to righting wrongs, delivering justice, and ensuring that no injustice goes
unaddressed. It serves as evidence of the flexibility and critical role of equity in the ongoing
effort to create a just and equitable legal system.

Page 22 of 25
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

LIST OF CASES

1. Patterson v. Murphy, 1978 ILRM 85.

2. Manishankar Hargovan v. Trikam Narsi, (1867) 5 B.H.C.B.
3. Pennington v Waine [2002] 4 All ER 215, pp. 63-66.
4. Sony Pictures Network India Pvt. Ltd. v. www.sportsala.tv, CS (COMM) 28/9/2021
5. Taj Television v. Rajan Mandal, [2003] FSR 22.
6. Eros International v. BSNL, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 10315.
7. Star v. Ujjwal, CS(OS) No.2243 of 2014.
8. Namdeo Lokman Lodhi v. Narmadabai and Others, 1953 AIR 228.
9. CC(I), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Co., (2018) 9 SCC 1.
10. Kapil Mohan v. CIT, (1999) 1 SCC 430.
11. Vodafone International Holdings v. Union Of India & Anr, 2012 1 SCR 573.

ARTICLES AND BOOKS

1. Richard Edwards and Nigel Stockwell, Trusts and Equity (7 ed., 2005), Pearson
Education, p. 34.
2. J Martin, Hanbury and Martin's Modern Equity (19th edn Sweet and Maxwell 2012) p.
1024.
3. Jeffrey Hackney, Understanding Equity and Trusts, (Fontana, 1987) p. 29.
4. George T. Bispham, The principle of Equity vol. 1-2(Joseph D. McCoy 11th ed. 1931).
5. R.E. Megarry, Snell’s Principles of Equity Vol. 2 (23rd ed. 1947).
6. Glanville Williams, Learning the Law (Delhi: University Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Lt,
2009) pp. 24-29.
7. C.M RAO, law of Injunctions (Delhi: University Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Lt, 2007),445-
667
8. Karnwal Megha, “Law of Equity”.
9. Joseph Story, Alfred Edward Randell, Story on Equity (third English ed., 1920), Sweet &
Maxwell. p. 34.

Page 23 of 25
ONLINE RESOURCES

 Manupatra Online Database

 SCC Online Database
 Legit Quest online database
 Case Mine online database
 Live Law

Page 24 of 25