Tweet
US-based Dow Chemicals, which owns Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), has questioned the Supreme Court’s authority in enhancing the compensation package for victims of the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy.
In an exhaustive affidavit in response to an SC notice, the company ruled out any possibility for enhancement. It stated that two Supreme Court judgements have given finality to the 1989 “full and final” settlement arrived between the Centre and UCC - at $470 million - to which even the Centre never objected.
This figure was quite high compared to the then standard of compensation and if it is revisited, Dow demanded refund of the initial amount.
Though it seems an uphill task for the Centre to get over the objections, it may first have to get over the preliminary issue of jurisdiction raised by Dow. In its affidavit, Dow Chemicals said, “Dow Chemicals company is a foreign company incorporated in Delaware, USA, with its principal place of business in Michigan, USA. It has no presence in India that would make it amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.”
It added, “Nor did it have any presence in India at the time of the events underlying the instant curative petition to make it amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.”
A five-judge Bench which is examining the issue had issued notice earlier this year to examine the request of Centre seeking an additional sum of ` 5,786 crore besides additional liability of `1,743 crore on UCC towards rehabilitation of victims and `315 crore towards environmental degradation.
The incident of December 2-3, 1984 being by far one of the worst industrial and chemical tragedies, the apex court had sought responses from all present and erstwhile owners of UCC - Dow Chemicals, McLeod Russel India and Eveready Industries.
Responding to the grounds adopted by the Centre terming the 1989 settlement as “erroneous” as the total deaths reported then were 3000 which later rose to 5295 and correspondingly even the injured who rose from 50,000 to 5.27 lakh, Dow affidavit disputed the figures and claimed each victim was paid compensation twice over, higher than prevailing market rate. Under law, the company said it was not bound to pay even a penny more than the agreed settlement.
Holding out a threat to the Centre seeking review of the previous compensation, the company, determined to pursue a civil suit, demanded the money already paid to be refunded with interest.
In an exhaustive affidavit in response to an SC notice, the company ruled out any possibility for enhancement. It stated that two Supreme Court judgements have given finality to the 1989 “full and final” settlement arrived between the Centre and UCC - at $470 million - to which even the Centre never objected.
This figure was quite high compared to the then standard of compensation and if it is revisited, Dow demanded refund of the initial amount.
Though it seems an uphill task for the Centre to get over the objections, it may first have to get over the preliminary issue of jurisdiction raised by Dow. In its affidavit, Dow Chemicals said, “Dow Chemicals company is a foreign company incorporated in Delaware, USA, with its principal place of business in Michigan, USA. It has no presence in India that would make it amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.”
It added, “Nor did it have any presence in India at the time of the events underlying the instant curative petition to make it amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.”
A five-judge Bench which is examining the issue had issued notice earlier this year to examine the request of Centre seeking an additional sum of ` 5,786 crore besides additional liability of `1,743 crore on UCC towards rehabilitation of victims and `315 crore towards environmental degradation.
The incident of December 2-3, 1984 being by far one of the worst industrial and chemical tragedies, the apex court had sought responses from all present and erstwhile owners of UCC - Dow Chemicals, McLeod Russel India and Eveready Industries.
Responding to the grounds adopted by the Centre terming the 1989 settlement as “erroneous” as the total deaths reported then were 3000 which later rose to 5295 and correspondingly even the injured who rose from 50,000 to 5.27 lakh, Dow affidavit disputed the figures and claimed each victim was paid compensation twice over, higher than prevailing market rate. Under law, the company said it was not bound to pay even a penny more than the agreed settlement.
Holding out a threat to the Centre seeking review of the previous compensation, the company, determined to pursue a civil suit, demanded the money already paid to be refunded with interest.
