Baby Manji Yamada Vs. Union of India, AIR (2009)

Home
/
Publications
/
Case Snippets
/
Baby Manji Yamada...

The case of Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of India, AIR (2009) SC 84, addressed the legal complexities of cross-border surrogacy. Following the separation of a Japanese couple before the birth of Baby Manji through a surrogacy agreement with an Indian surrogate, the Supreme Court prioritized the child’s welfare, directing the issuance of travel documents for her to join her grandmother in Japan. The Court highlighted the lack of legal frameworks for surrogacy in India and emphasized the role of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights. This landmark judgment underscored the need for surrogacy regulation, ultimately influencing the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

SC Clarifies the limitation period under 468 of CR.P.C

In Ghanshyam Soni v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025 INSC 803), the Supreme Court held that for Section 468 CrPC, the limitation period runs from the date a complaint is filed, not when the Magistrate takes cognizance. A timely 498A IPC complaint cannot be dismissed as time-barred due to court delays. Relying on Bharat Damodar... Read more » Read more »

Arbitrators Can Grant Interest on Interest

In North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. S.A. Builders Ltd., the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while adjudicating a civil appeal by special leave, affirmed that an arbitrator is empowered to grant post-award interest on both the principal amount and the pre-award interest accrued thereon. The case arose from a contractual dispute concerning unpaid amounts related to a... Read more » Read more »

BCCI v. Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd. Comm. Arb. Petition 4466/2020 (16th June 2021)

The Bombay High Court observed that an arbitral tribunal cannot apply public law principles on fairness and reasonableness. The Court held that “A writ court may well hold against a public body on a public law principle or by invoking Article 14; But an Arbitrator, constrained as he or she is by the contract, has... Read more » Read more »