the UCIL. But, on the other hand, according to the terms of the agreement, the management and operation of the plant, as well as 49 percent ownership, was limited to Indian citizens. The plant produced goods for domestic consumption only and all its operations were regulated by agencies of the Indian government. There also was considerable evidence that UCC had little to do with building the plant (providing only a basic design package) and was actually forbidden to exercise any authority over the design and construction of the plant.
UCC had a similarly restricted role in terms of personnel in the plant. The American firm had provided advisory personnel to monitor UCIL's progress in "detailing the design and erecting the plant" (18). But the construction of the plant, which took place from 1972 to 1980, was done independently, with UCIL engineers supervising a Bombay firm. UCC further claimed that the design package it provided was, in itself, insufficient for building the plant. These plans had to be detailed and processes had to be designed by numerous Indian experts. According to UCC, the original design underwent many variations during the ten years of construction.
When it came to suing for damages, the victims filed over 6,500 suits against UCIL in the Indian courts and had begun to file
...