LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus M/S. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 881 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. M/S. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION & ORS. (Curative Pet (C) No. 345-347 of 2010) MARCH 14, 2023 [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, SANJIV KHANNA, ABHAY S. OKA, VIKRAM NATH AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.] Bhopal Gas Tragedy Case – Curative petitions filed by the Union of India seeking increase in the settlement amount – Held: Present petitions were filed by the Union of India 19 years post the settlement seeking to reopen the same – The very basis for the original settlement was the need to provide immediate succour to the victims through medical relief, rehabilitation measures etc. – Without a settlement, immediate funds would not have been available for the victims – Finality was reached at an early stage by way of the settlement – Endeavours to reopen the same proved unsuccessful – Now the curative petitions have been filed by the Union of India having not filed review petitions – Further, admittedly, the amount of settlement was found to be in surplus of the actual requirement – Thus, settlement amount was sufficient to compensate the claimants – Rs.50 crore remains with the Reserve Bank of India lying undisbursed – The exchange rate worked in the Union’s favour as the exchange rate of the Dollar rate escalated – Some interest on the settlement amount also came in – Furthermore, in the review judgment, in case of a shortage, the responsibility was placed on the Union of India to make good the deficiency and to take out the relevant insurance policies – However, no such insurance policy was taken out – The Union cannot be negligent on this aspect and then seek a prayer to fix such liability on UCC – Rs.50 crore lying with the RBI to be utilised by the Union of India to satisfy pending claims, if any, in accordance with the 1985 Act and the Scheme framed thereunder – Union of India’s claim for ‘topping up’ the settlement amount has no foundations in any known legal principle – Curative petitions not entertained – Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985. [2023] 2 S.C.R. 881 881 A B C D E F G H 882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R. Curative petition – Held: A curative petition relates to a re- examination of a final judgment of Supreme Court that has already undergone such re-examination through the review jurisdiction – Court’s inherent power ought not to be exercised as a matter of course – Court should be circumspect in reconsidering an order that had become final on dismissal of the review petition – However, in the present case in view of the nature of the matter, the curative petitions were examined despite the preliminary objection on maintainability. Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India & Ors. (1989) 3 SCC 38 : [1989] 3 SCR 128; Union Carbide Corporation & Others v. Union of India & Others (1991) 4 SCC 584 : [1991] 1 Suppl. SCR 251; Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 707 : [2007] 6 SCR 24; Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Anr. (2002) 4 SCC 388 : [2002] 2 SCR 1006; Union Carbide Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India (2006) 13 SCC 321 – referred to. Case Law Reference [1989] 3 SCR 128 referred to Para 6 [1991] 1 Suppl. SCR 251 referred to Para 9 [2007] 6 SCR 24 referred to Para 13 [2002] 2 SCR 1006 referred to Para 23 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Curative Pet (C) No. 345- 347 of 2010 in R.P. No. 229 of 1989 & 623-624 of 1989 in C.A. No.3187- 3188 of 1988 and SLP (C) No. 13080 of 1988. From the Judgment and Order dated 24.02.1989 in R.P. (C) No. 229 of 1989 and dated 15.02.1989 in R.P. (C) Nos. 623 and 624 of 1989 of the Supreme Court of India. R. Venkataramani, AG, Ms. Madhvi Divan, A.S.G., Saurabh Mishra, A.A.G., R. Balasubramiam, S. Wasim A Qadri, Harish N Salve, Ravindra Shrivastav, Sidharth Luthra, Sanjiv Sen, Sanjay Parikh, Naveen R. Nath, Sr. Advs., Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ms. Chinmayee Chandra, Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Venkataramani, Anandh A B C D E F G H 883 Venkataramani, Vinayak Mehrotra, Chitvan Singhal, Ms. Mansi Sood, Ms. Sonali Jain, Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Raman Yadav, Nakul Chengappa K.K., Ms. Akriti A Manubarwala, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Ms. Karuna Nundy, Ms. Aparna Bhat, Ms. Karishma Maria, Nischal Anand, Rahul Narayan, Ms. Muskan Tibrewala, Amanpreet Singh, Ragini Nagpal, Ishaan Karki, Sanchith Shiva Kumar, Mrs. Shiraz Contractor Patodia, Ashish Singh, Ms. Divya Sharma, Ms. Juhi Chawla, Mayank Singhal, Ms. Sanya Shukla, Ms. Devangna Singh, Ms. Gayatri Goswami, Pankaj Singhal,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.