Express News Service
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed its displeasure over Centre’s failure in offering compensation to the victims of Bhopal gasoline tragedy until now.
The 5 choose bench whereas contemplating centre’s plea searching for extra compensation from Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) (now Dow Chemical Company), expressed concern almost about the undisbursed dues of Rs 50 crore which have been mendacity with the centre out of the $470 million paid by the corporate.
“We were told that ₹50 crore of the settlement amount is lying undisbursed… Have you not exhausted the settlement amount? How is ₹50 crore lying undisbursed? This means that people are not getting the money… Are you responsible for the money not going to the people?” A five judge bench headed by Justice SK Kaul remarked. He also said, “There are many slippery areas if you say, open the settlement.”
Remarking that the centre with out searching for evaluate of its earlier order had opted to straight file a healing plea in 2010 for enhancement of the ultimate settlement paid by UCC, the bench requested centre the way it might ask for added compensation (over Rs 7400 crore) when UCC had already paid Rs 470 million greenback.
Further asking centre as to how might it reopen the settlement, the bench stated, “Settlement has arrived at specific stage of time, can we are saying 10 years therefore or 30 years therefore open the settlement on the idea of some recent paperwork? why did you agree then? One of the events to the settlement was the Union of India no much less, not a weak social gathering… Let’s say, alternatively, a state of affairs arises that the precise state of affairs is much less horrific than made out to be… Can the opposite aspect (UCC) come out and say that an extra quantity was paid within the settlement and so they need the cash again? Can we allow that?”
Referring to SCs 1991 determination whereby the highest court docket had refused to reopen the settlement, Justice Oka stated that the identical had clarified that any shortfall within the extra compensation to be paid to the victims by the centre.
Stressing on enhance within the variety of claimants since 1991, Attorney General (AG) for India R Venkataramani argued that a rare state of affairs was offered by the tragedy. “There’s always situations court has added to settlement if justice of cause demands. We are asking for settlement to be annulled. Amount made over to us was under settlement, figure on number of deaths for temporary damage etc, the figures have gone way more than that,” the AG added.
Appearing for UCC, Senior Advocate Harish Salve stated that UCC wasn’t keen to pay a farthing extra if SC units apart the settlement that was arrived in 1989. “My consumer will not be keen to pay a farthing extra. They say that is what they settled for, and if you happen to (authorities) don’t need the settlement, let the legislation take its course. That is our submission,” Salve stated.
“There is settlement. There is no re-opener clause in a settlement. There’s jurisdictional factor where curative jurisdiction was unknown when all this started, a suit was filed by Ggent which was arrived was based on “consent decree” which was sourced from a swimsuit. He additionally added that the legal responsibility of UCC for the tragedy was not established.
Centre within the plea that was filed in 2010 following a public outcry towards the perceived laxity of sentences towards the accused’s tried for the gasoline launch had hunted for enhancing the 1989 settlement settlement which was negotiated by the UOI with UCC and Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) and SC’s judgement approving the negotiation.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed its displeasure over Centre’s failure in offering compensation to the victims of Bhopal gasoline tragedy until now.
The 5 choose bench whereas contemplating centre’s plea searching for extra compensation from Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) (now Dow Chemical Company), expressed concern almost about the undisbursed dues of Rs 50 crore which have been mendacity with the centre out of the $470 million paid by the corporate.
“We were told that ₹50 crore of the settlement amount is lying undisbursed… Have you not exhausted the settlement amount? How is ₹50 crore lying undisbursed? This means that people are not getting the money… Are you responsible for the money not going to the people?” A five judge bench headed by Justice SK Kaul remarked. He also said, “There are many slippery areas if you say, open the settlement.”
Remarking that the centre with out searching for evaluate of its earlier order had opted to straight file a healing plea in 2010 for enhancement of the ultimate settlement paid by UCC, the bench requested centre the way it might ask for added compensation (over Rs 7400 crore) when UCC had already paid Rs 470 million greenback.
Further asking centre as to how might it reopen the settlement, the bench stated, “Settlement has arrived at specific stage of time, can we are saying 10 years therefore or 30 years therefore open the settlement on the idea of some recent paperwork? why did you agree then? One of the events to the settlement was the Union of India no much less, not a weak social gathering… Let’s say, alternatively, a state of affairs arises that the precise state of affairs is much less horrific than made out to be… Can the opposite aspect (UCC) come out and say that an extra quantity was paid within the settlement and so they need the cash again? Can we allow that?”
Referring to SCs 1991 determination whereby the highest court docket had refused to reopen the settlement, Justice Oka stated that the identical had clarified that any shortfall within the extra compensation to be paid to the victims by the centre.
Stressing on enhance within the variety of claimants since 1991, Attorney General (AG) for India R Venkataramani argued that a rare state of affairs was offered by the tragedy. “There’s always situations court has added to settlement if justice of cause demands. We are asking for settlement to be annulled. Amount made over to us was under settlement, figure on number of deaths for temporary damage etc, the figures have gone way more than that,” the AG added.
Appearing for UCC, Senior Advocate Harish Salve stated that UCC wasn’t keen to pay a farthing extra if SC units apart the settlement that was arrived in 1989. “My consumer will not be keen to pay a farthing extra. They say that is what they settled for, and if you happen to (authorities) don’t need the settlement, let the legislation take its course. That is our submission,” Salve stated.
“There is settlement. There is no re-opener clause in a settlement. There’s jurisdictional factor where curative jurisdiction was unknown when all this started, a suit was filed by Ggent which was arrived was based on “consent decree” which was sourced from a swimsuit. He additionally added that the legal responsibility of UCC for the tragedy was not established.
Centre within the plea that was filed in 2010 following a public outcry towards the perceived laxity of sentences towards the accused’s tried for the gasoline launch had hunted for enhancing the 1989 settlement settlement which was negotiated by the UOI with UCC and Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) and SC’s judgement approving the negotiation.
