Core Legal Answer & Context: While monetary compensation (damages) is the most common remedy in tort law, it is not the only one. Other remedies aim to prevent further harm, restore the status quo, or compel specific actions. These non-damages remedies are crucial for addressing situations where monetary compensation alone would be inadequate or where the primary goal is to stop an ongoing wrong. They provide flexibility to the courts in ensuring justice and protecting rights.

Relevant Statutes and Sections: The primary statute governing non-damages remedies in India is the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Key sections include:

• Sections 36-42: Deal with Injunctions. An injunction is a judicial order restraining a person from doing or continuing to do a particular act (prohibitory injunction) or compelling them to do a particular act (mandatory injunction). They can be temporary (interlocutory) or perpetual.
• Sections 5-8: Deal with Recovery of Possession of Property. These sections allow a person dispossessed of immovable or movable property to recover its possession through legal action, rather than just seeking damages for the dispossession.
• Section 9: Deals with Specific Performance of Contracts, though primarily a contract law remedy, it can sometimes be relevant in torts where a specific action is required to rectify a tortious wrong (e.g., compelling a party to remove an obstruction causing nuisance).

Important Landmark Cases:

• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) (AIR 1987 SC 1086): While famous for establishing absolute liability, the Supreme Court also issued directions for the closure of the hazardous industry and the establishment of safety measures, which are akin to mandatory injunctions aimed at preventing future harm. This illustrates the court's power to issue preventive and corrective orders beyond mere compensation.
• Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co. (AIR 1995 SC 2372): This case laid down the principles for granting interim injunctions, emphasizing the need for a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and the balance of convenience. Though a commercial dispute, its principles are universally applied in tort cases where an injunction is sought to prevent ongoing harm like nuisance or trespass.
• Ashby v. White (1703) 2 Ld Raym 938: This classic English case established the principle of injuria sine damno (violation of a legal right without actual damage). While it led to nominal damages, it underscored that a legal right violation itself warrants a remedy, which could, in other contexts, be an injunction to prevent future violations.

Clear Conclusion: Beyond damages, the law of tort provides crucial remedies like injunctions (prohibitory and mandatory) to prevent ongoing or future wrongs, and specific restitution to recover possession of property. These remedies are vital for ensuring comprehensive justice, as they allow courts to address harms that cannot be adequately compensated by money alone, thereby protecting rights and maintaining order by compelling or restraining specific actions.