<P> The Government of India refused the offer from Union Carbide and claimed US $3.3 billion . The Indian Supreme Court told both sides to come to an agreement and "start with a clean slate" in November 1988 . Eventually, in an out - of - court settlement reached in February 1989, Union Carbide agreed to pay US $470 million for damages caused in the Bhopal disaster . The amount was immediately paid . </P> <P> Throughout 1990, the Indian Supreme Court heard appeals against the settlement . In October 1991, the Supreme Court upheld the original $470 million, dismissing any other outstanding petitions that challenged the original decision . The Court ordered the Indian government "to purchase, out of settlement fund, a group medical insurance policy to cover 100,000 persons who may later develop symptoms" and cover any shortfall in the settlement fund . It also requested UCC and its subsidiary UCIL "voluntarily" fund a hospital in Bhopal, at an estimated $17 million, to specifically treat victims of the Bhopal disaster . The company agreed to this . </P> <P> In 1991, the local Bhopal authorities charged Anderson, who had retired in 1986, with manslaughter, a crime that carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison . He was declared a fugitive from justice by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Bhopal on 1 February 1992 for failing to appear at the court hearings in a culpable homicide case in which he was named the chief defendant . Orders were passed to the Government of India to press for an extradition from the United States . The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the decision of the lower federal courts in October 1993, meaning that victims of the Bhopal disaster could not seek damages in a U.S. court . </P> <P> In 2004, the Indian Supreme Court ordered the Indian government to release any remaining settlement funds to victims . And in September 2006, the Welfare Commission for Bhopal Gas Victims announced that all original compensation claims and revised petitions had been "cleared". The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City upheld the dismissal of remaining claims in the case of Bano v. Union Carbide Corporation in 2006 . This move blocked plaintiffs' motions for class certification and claims for property damages and remediation . In the view of UCC, "the ruling reaffirms UCC's long - held positions and finally puts to rest--both procedurally and substantively--the issues raised in the class action complaint first filed against Union Carbide in 1999 by Haseena Bi and several organisations representing the residents of Bhopal". </P>

Which indian company has introduced black box technology