SC Judgment 2025 - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Allows Older Couples to Continue Surrogacy if Embryos Frozen Before 2022

27Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Older Couples to Continue Surrogacy if Embryos Frozen Before 2022

The Supreme Court held that the age restrictions under Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, do not apply retrospectively. Intending couples who had commenced the surrogacy process—specifically by creating and freezing embryos—before the Act's enforcement retain their vested right to continue the procedure, irrespective of subsequently exceeding the statutory age limits. Facts Of The Case: The case consolidates three petitions concerning age restrictions for intending couples under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. In the first, a couple married in 2019 began IVF treatment in 2020 but were advised to use surrogacy due to the wife’s medical history. Their embryos were frozen in January 2021, but the process was stalled by the pandemic before the Act, with its a...

Promises Must Be Kept: Supreme Court Protects Industry from Unexpected Tariff Hikes by State Board

The Supreme Court held that the electricity board was estopped from resiling from its contractual obligation to provide a concessional tariff after having sanctioned, agreed, and partially implemented it. The board's unilateral withdrawal of the concession after over two years was deemed arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, an existing industrial unit with a Low Tension (LT) power connection, underwent significant expansion by installing a large induction furnace, which necessitated a High Tension (HT) or bulk power supply. It applied for this new connection in 1998. The respondent electricity board, after inspection, sanctioned the HT connection via a memo that explicitly stipulated the appellant’s eligibility for a 25% concessional tarif...

Supreme Court Orders Refund to Patanjali Foods: Bank Guarantee Encashment ≠ Duty Payment

The Supreme Court held that encashment of bank guarantees furnished as interim security for disputed customs duty does not constitute "payment of duty" under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the doctrine of unjust enrichment is inapplicable to refund claims arising from such encashment. The Revenue must refund such amounts with interest when the underlying duty demand is invalidated by court order, without insisting on compliance with Section 27. Facts Of The Case: M/s M.P. Glychem Industries Ltd. (later merged into Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd., now Patanjali Foods Ltd.) imported crude degummed soyabean oil at Jamnagar in 2002. The Customs Department demanded higher duty based on a tariff value fixed under a notification issued under Section 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962...