07/06/2010
New York: US-based Union Carbide today maintained that it was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Bhopal court that gave its verdict in the 1984 gas disaster case, insisting that none of its officials were involved in operation of the plant.
"Union Carbide and its officials were not part of this case since the charges were divided long ago into a separate case.
"Furthermore, Union Carbide and its officials are not subject to the jurisdiction of Indian court since they did not have any involvement in the operation of the plant, which was owned and operated by the UCIL (Union Carbide India Limited)," a company statement said.
Reacting to the Bhopal court verdict, the statement said by requirement of the government of India, the Bhopal plant was detail designed, owned, operated and managed on a day-to-day basis by UCIL and its employees.
"All the appropriate people from the UCIL -- officers and those who actually ran the plant on a daily basis -- have appeared to face charges," it said.
Earlier in the day, a local court convicted all the eight accused including former Union Carbide Chairman Keshub Mahindra in the Bhopal Gas tragedy case, twenty six years after the world's worst industrial disaster that had left over 15,000 people dead.
Chief Judicial Magistrate Mohan P Tiwari pronounced the verdict in a packed court room convicting 85-year-old Mahindra, and seven others in the case relating to leakage of deadly methyl isocyanate gas in the intervening of Dec 2 and 3 1984.
Out of the nine accused tried for the offences, R B Roy Choudhary, then former Assistant Works Manager Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL), Mumbai, died during the trial.
They were held guilty under Sections 304-A (causing death by negligence), 304-II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 336, 337 and 338 (gross negligence) of the Indian Penal Code.
However, there was no word on Warren Anderson, the then Chairman of Union Carbide Corporation of the US, who was declared an absconder after he did not not subject himself to trial in the case that began 23 years ago.
Others found guilty are Vijay Gokhle, the then Managing Director of UCIL, Kishore Kamdar, the then Vice President, J N Mukund, the then Works Manager, S P Choudhary, the then Production Manager, K V Shetty, the then Plant Superintendent and S I Quershi, the then Production Assistant.
The eight have been setenced to two years in jail. All of them have got bail after providing a surety of Rs 25,000 each. Arguments on the quantum of sentence were put forward by the defence and prosecution counsel. Except Quershi, all the seven others, including Mahindra, were present in the court. A ninth accused R B Roy Choudhary, the then former Assistant Works Manager of UCIL, Mumbai, had died during the course of the trial.
A total of 178 prosecution witnesses were examined in the trial and 3008 documents were produced while eight defence witnesses deposed in the court.
Anderson, who did not face trial, is based in the US. The companies--Union Carbide Corporation, USA and Union Carbide Eastern, Hong Kong --were also not represented in the trial.
FIR in the tragedy was filed on December 3, 1984 and the case was transferred to CBI on December 6, 1984. The CBI filed the chargesheet after investigation on December 1, 1987. Subsequently, a local court had framed charges against the accused.
CBI counsel C Sahay had argued that defective design of UCIL and its poor maintenance resulted into the tragedy that had left 2259 dead immediately after the mishap. The lingering effects of the highly poisonous methyl isocyanate killed over 15,000 people.
Sahay contended that Union Carbide Corporation, USA, in its survey of the factory in 1982 had found serious safety and maintenance lapses on nearly 10 counts. The prosecution argued that even after UCC experts' team visit to the factory, adequate safety measures and maintenance works were not undertaken in UCIL.
A Central team, which visited the UCIL plant post-tragedy in 1984, also found lapses in safety norms and maintenance, the counsel had said. Refuting the charge that lapses in maintenance and safety norms had led to the tragedy, defence counsel D Prasad and Amit Desai had argued that all steps were followed to keep the UCIL's Bhopal factory in a proper shape.
The defence had also refuted the charge that a team of Union Carbide Corporation, USA, which visited the plant following the death of a worker here in 1982, had found any fault in the unit.
The defence had contended that the UCIL was so much concerned on the safety front that after the death of Mohammed Ashraf Khan, it had reported the matter to the UCC, USA, which had carried out a safety audit.
Source: IANS/Agencies
K.Venugopal
#3
Monday, 07 June 2010 21:47:37
This arrogant statement by Union Carbide should be considered by Indian jurisprudence suo motto and the legal position made clear. Also, the Indian Company Law Board should look into the point and issue a statement whether Union Carbide's position has any legal validity.
http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=3982304&page=0
New York: US-based Union Carbide today maintained that it was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Bhopal court that gave its verdict in the 1984 gas disaster case, insisting that none of its officials were involved in operation of the plant.
"Union Carbide and its officials were not part of this case since the charges were divided long ago into a separate case.
"Furthermore, Union Carbide and its officials are not subject to the jurisdiction of Indian court since they did not have any involvement in the operation of the plant, which was owned and operated by the UCIL (Union Carbide India Limited)," a company statement said.
Reacting to the Bhopal court verdict, the statement said by requirement of the government of India, the Bhopal plant was detail designed, owned, operated and managed on a day-to-day basis by UCIL and its employees.
"All the appropriate people from the UCIL -- officers and those who actually ran the plant on a daily basis -- have appeared to face charges," it said.
Earlier in the day, a local court convicted all the eight accused including former Union Carbide Chairman Keshub Mahindra in the Bhopal Gas tragedy case, twenty six years after the world's worst industrial disaster that had left over 15,000 people dead.
Chief Judicial Magistrate Mohan P Tiwari pronounced the verdict in a packed court room convicting 85-year-old Mahindra, and seven others in the case relating to leakage of deadly methyl isocyanate gas in the intervening of Dec 2 and 3 1984.
Out of the nine accused tried for the offences, R B Roy Choudhary, then former Assistant Works Manager Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL), Mumbai, died during the trial.
They were held guilty under Sections 304-A (causing death by negligence), 304-II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 336, 337 and 338 (gross negligence) of the Indian Penal Code.
However, there was no word on Warren Anderson, the then Chairman of Union Carbide Corporation of the US, who was declared an absconder after he did not not subject himself to trial in the case that began 23 years ago.
Others found guilty are Vijay Gokhle, the then Managing Director of UCIL, Kishore Kamdar, the then Vice President, J N Mukund, the then Works Manager, S P Choudhary, the then Production Manager, K V Shetty, the then Plant Superintendent and S I Quershi, the then Production Assistant.
The eight have been setenced to two years in jail. All of them have got bail after providing a surety of Rs 25,000 each. Arguments on the quantum of sentence were put forward by the defence and prosecution counsel. Except Quershi, all the seven others, including Mahindra, were present in the court. A ninth accused R B Roy Choudhary, the then former Assistant Works Manager of UCIL, Mumbai, had died during the course of the trial.
A total of 178 prosecution witnesses were examined in the trial and 3008 documents were produced while eight defence witnesses deposed in the court.
Anderson, who did not face trial, is based in the US. The companies--Union Carbide Corporation, USA and Union Carbide Eastern, Hong Kong --were also not represented in the trial.
FIR in the tragedy was filed on December 3, 1984 and the case was transferred to CBI on December 6, 1984. The CBI filed the chargesheet after investigation on December 1, 1987. Subsequently, a local court had framed charges against the accused.
CBI counsel C Sahay had argued that defective design of UCIL and its poor maintenance resulted into the tragedy that had left 2259 dead immediately after the mishap. The lingering effects of the highly poisonous methyl isocyanate killed over 15,000 people.
Sahay contended that Union Carbide Corporation, USA, in its survey of the factory in 1982 had found serious safety and maintenance lapses on nearly 10 counts. The prosecution argued that even after UCC experts' team visit to the factory, adequate safety measures and maintenance works were not undertaken in UCIL.
A Central team, which visited the UCIL plant post-tragedy in 1984, also found lapses in safety norms and maintenance, the counsel had said. Refuting the charge that lapses in maintenance and safety norms had led to the tragedy, defence counsel D Prasad and Amit Desai had argued that all steps were followed to keep the UCIL's Bhopal factory in a proper shape.
The defence had also refuted the charge that a team of Union Carbide Corporation, USA, which visited the plant following the death of a worker here in 1982, had found any fault in the unit.
The defence had contended that the UCIL was so much concerned on the safety front that after the death of Mohammed Ashraf Khan, it had reported the matter to the UCC, USA, which had carried out a safety audit.
Source: IANS/Agencies
K.Venugopal
#3
Monday, 07 June 2010 21:47:37
This arrogant statement by Union Carbide should be considered by Indian jurisprudence suo motto and the legal position made clear. Also, the Indian Company Law Board should look into the point and issue a statement whether Union Carbide's position has any legal validity.
http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=3982304&page=0
No comments:
Post a Comment