ABSTRACT

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE

UNION CARBIDE V. UOI
Brief out line:
The Union Carbide (India) Ltd. (UCIL), a sister concern of Union Carbide Corporation (UCC)
owned and operated in Bhopal, a chemical plant manufacturing pesticides, one of the ingredients
in the composition being Methyl Isocyanate (MIC), considered to be the most toxic chemical in
industrial use. On the 2nd December 1984 night there was escape of MIC from the tanks in
which it was stored. And the fumes blew into the hutments abutting the plant premises affecting
the residents as also the flora and fauna. About 4000 people lost their lives and the health of tens
of thousands of people was affected in various degrees of seriousness. The Bhopal Gas Leak
Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 was 253 passed on 29.3.1985 authorizing the
Government of India, as Parent patria exclusively to represent the victims so that the interests of
victims of the disaster could be fully protected and that the claims for compensation were
pursued speedily, effectively and to the best advantage of the claimants. In exercise of the
power conferred under the Act, the Union of India instituted an action on behalf of the Victims
against Union Carbide Corporation before the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
for award of compensation for the damage caused by the disaster. A large number of fatal
accidents and personal injury actions filed by and on behalf of about 1,86,000 victims were
already pending in courts in U.S.A. All these claims came to be consolidated by the Judicial
Panel on Multi District Litigation and assigned to U.S. District Court; Southern District of New
York presided over by Judge Keenan. The claim brought by the Union of India was also
consolidated with them. However, the UCC resisted the choice of the American Forum on the
plea of forum-non-convenience. Judge Keenan allowed the plea of UCC and the Union of India
was constrained to alter its choice of forum and to pursue the remedy in the District Court at
Bhopal by filing a suit seeking a compensation of 3.3 Billion Dollars against the UCC and
UCIL. Efforts for a settlement were not fruitful. The District Court made an order directing
payment of Rs.350 cores as interim compensation. UCC challenged this award before the High
Court and the quantum of interim compensation came to be reduced to Rs.250 cores. Both

Union of India and UCC preferred appeals by special leave against the high court Judgment.And
union carbide also filed the petition of restitution of suit.
Any civilized system of law is bound to provide remedies for cases of what has been called
unjust enrichment or unjust benefit, that is, to prevent a man from retaining the money of, or
some benefit derived from, another which it is against conscience that he should keep.
Restitution is an ancient institution, which has had an established position in the history of law
and justice. It has its historical origin in the middle Ages and can mainly be found in the
Germanic Common laws. Oxford English Dictionary defines restitution' as an act of restoring a
thing to its proper owner. The word in its etymological sense means restoring to a party on the
modification, variation or reversal of a decree or order, what has been lost to him in execution of
decree or order of the court or in direct consequence of a decree or order'. To cite Black's Law
Dictionary, the term has been defined in three senses, viz.(1) return or restoration of some
specific thing to its rightful owner or status; (2) compensation for benefits derived from a wrong
done to another; (3) compensation or reparation for the loss caused to another. As far as Indian
Code of Civil procedure is concerned, though the term restitution has not been defined in the
Code, it has got its statutory recognition in the section 144.
Keywords: - Restitution, Union Carbide, Sec.144, UOI
Hypothesis: whether Section 144 CPC applies, where a party has acted on the faith of an order
of the court.
Research questions:
1. Whether Section 144,of CPC confers any new substantive right to the party, which is not
already obtained under the general law.
2. Whether restitution in the sense that any funds obtained and appropriated by the Union of
India requiring to be paid back arises.
Research methodology: The method of doctrinal Research has been used.
DEEPESH RAJ
SEM- V SEC- A

2014034