The Bombay High Court examined whether an arbitral tribunal holds the power to restore a terminated dealership or franchise agreement as a relief. The judgment directly engages Section 17 and the general powers of arbitrators under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The core question: does granting specific performance of a distributorship contract fall within arbitral jurisdiction, or does it cross into equitable territory reserved for civil courts? The ruling has significant implications for commercial arbitration involving dealer and franchise contracts.

This judgment sits at the intersection of two critical doctrines: arbitral jurisdiction and specific performance in commercial contracts.

Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an arbitral tribunal's remedial powers are largely co-extensive with those of a civil court when parties have agreed to arbitrate. Section 17 allows interim relief during proceedings, while final awards can include specific performance under Section 28 read with the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

The critical shift came with the 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act, which made specific performance the rule, not the exception — courts (and by extension arbitrators) can no longer refuse it merely because monetary compensation is adequate. This dramatically altered the landscape for terminated franchise and dealership agreements.

However, a countervailing principle exists: courts have traditionally been reluctant to order restoration of ongoing commercial relationships — dealerships, distributorships, employment — because supervision of such performance is practically impossible. This is the 'continuous supervision' problem.

The Bombay HC's analysis asks whether an arbitrator faces the same jurisprudential constraints. If arbitrators can award specific performance (which they can post-2018), can they direct a party to reinstate a terminated dealer? The answer turns on whether the contract requires continuous court/tribunal supervision to enforce — a limitation that courts apply even post-2018 under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act.

For CLAT PG aspirants, this judgment connects contract law (termination, breach, remedies), arbitration law (tribunal jurisdiction, scope of awards), and the Specific Relief Act (specific performance, injunctions) — a rare triple-overlap that examiners love.