- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
[ By Bobby Anthony ]Justice S Ravindra Bhat of the Supreme Court has recused himself from hearing the central government’s plea seeking Rs 7,844 crore as funds from successor firms of the US-based Union Carbide Corporation to pay additional compensation to the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy victims.Consequently, a five-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra has adjourned the hearing stating...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Justice S Ravindra Bhat of the Supreme Court has recused himself from hearing the central government’s plea seeking Rs 7,844 crore as funds from successor firms of the US-based Union Carbide Corporation to pay additional compensation to the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy victims.
Consequently, a five-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra has adjourned the hearing stating that Chief Justice of India S A Bobde would decide about the composition of the SC bench which will hear the case.
Incidentally, the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) which is presently owned by Dow Chemicals, paid a compensation worth USD 470 million (Rs 715 crore at the time of settlement) after a toxic gas leak from the Union Carbide factory on the intervening night of December 2 and December 3, 1984 killed more than 3,000 people and affected 1.02 lakh more.
The central government has sought a direction to Union Carbide Corporation and other companies to pay an additional amount of Rs 7,844 crore, which is over and above an earlier compensation settlement amount of USD 470 million paid in 1989.
Since 1984, the Bhopal Gas tragedy victims have been fighting a long and draining battle for adequate compensation and proper medical treatment for ailments caused due to the leak of poisonous methyl isocyanate gas which was used by the company in the production of pesticides.