Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    In Re Union Carbide

    Uploaded by

    JR
    In 1984, a chemical plant accident in Bhopal, India caused by a gas leak from a Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) plant killed over 2,000 people and injured 200,000. The Indian government enacted a law allowing it to represent victims and filed a complaint against Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) in New York. The New York court granted UCC's motion to dismiss on conditions including consenting to jurisdiction in India and agreeing to satisfy judgments if minimal due process was met. The Indian government then filed suit against UCIL/UCC in Bhopal. The New York court may refuse jurisdiction as most victims and evidence are in India, and UCC reserved its right to appeal conditions

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    In Re Union Carbide

    Uploaded by

    JR
    29 views1 page
    In 1984, a chemical plant accident in Bhopal, India caused by a gas leak from a Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) plant killed over 2,000 people and injured 200,000. The Indian government enacted a law allowing it to represent victims and filed a complaint against Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) in New York. The New York court granted UCC's motion to dismiss on conditions including consenting to jurisdiction in India and agreeing to satisfy judgments if minimal due process was met. The Indian government then filed suit against UCIL/UCC in Bhopal. The New York court may refuse jurisdiction as most victims and evidence are in India, and UCC reserved its right to appeal conditions

    Original Description:

    DIGEST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    In 1984, a chemical plant accident in Bhopal, India caused by a gas leak from a Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) plant killed over 2,000 people and injured 200,000. The Indian government enacted a law allowing it to represent victims and filed a complaint against Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) in New York. The New York court granted UCC's motion to dismiss on conditions including consenting to jurisdiction in India and agreeing to satisfy judgments if minimal due process was met. The Indian government then filed suit against UCIL/UCC in Bhopal. The New York court may refuse jurisdiction as most victims and evidence are in India, and UCC reserved its right to appeal conditions

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    29 views1 page

    In Re Union Carbide

    Uploaded by

    JR
    In 1984, a chemical plant accident in Bhopal, India caused by a gas leak from a Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) plant killed over 2,000 people and injured 200,000. The Indian government enacted a law allowing it to represent victims and filed a complaint against Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) in New York. The New York court granted UCC's motion to dismiss on conditions including consenting to jurisdiction in India and agreeing to satisfy judgments if minimal due process was met. The Indian government then filed suit against UCIL/UCC in Bhopal. The New York court may refuse jurisdiction as most victims and evidence are in India, and UCC reserved its right to appeal conditions

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    In Re: Union Carbide

    FACTS:
    In 1984, an industrial accident in Bohpal caused by lethal gas released from a chemical plant of UCIL/UCC led to 2,000
    deaths and 200,000 injuries. India enacted a law which granted UOI (the Indian gov't) the right to represent the victims. UOI filed a
    complaint in NY against UCC. NY granted MTD of UCC on the condition that UCC: i. consent to India jd; ii. agree to satisfy
    judgment if minimal due process is met; and iii. be subject to modes of discovery under US law. UOI then brought suit against
    UCIL/UCC in Bohpal.
    ISSUE:
    W/N NY court may refuse jd.
    HELD:
    YES. First, most of the victims are Indian citizens residing in India. Most of the proof (witnesses, documents, operation) is in
    India. Second, no merit in UOI argument that UCC waived right to appeal conditions when it filed the MTD. UCC expressly reserved
    its right to appeal. Third, UCC consent to India jd is not unusual. Foreign judgments are recognized as conclusive in NY except if: i.
    partial tribunal or no due process; or ii. foreign court did not have personal jd. Fourth, UOI appeal for shared jd b/w India and US is
    illusory and unrealistic (once NY court dismissed case, it ceases to have jd). Fifth, however, NY court erred in imposing condition
    (i.e. rules for discovery of evidence must be limited to those authorized under India law; problem in construction of phrase "minimal
    due process")

    You might also like