The invention as recited in claim 8, further including hold-down means responsive to engagement of said copyboard with said roller means for holding said copy sheet against said original sheet as said copyboard moves toward said exposing station.10.
The invention as recited in claim 1, wherein said exposure means includes a source of ultraviolet radiation and roller means mounted in superposition thereof, and wherein said copyboard includes an ultraviolet transmissive plate supporting said original and copy sheets and movable between said roller means and said ultraviolet source whereby said original and copy sheets are held against each other and said transmissive plate by said roller means as said copyboard moves past said ultraviolet source.9.
All were released on bail shortly after the verdict.
An eighth former employee was also convicted, but died before the judgement was passed.
The invention as recited in claim 21, wherein said film supply means includes a roll of copy film, roller menas capturing the end of said film roll, and drive means imparting rotary motion to said roller means to advance said end of said film roll a preselected amount.23.
The invention as recited in claim 22, wherein said drive means includes a drive wheel operatively connected with said roller means and rotating the same to impart said preselected film advance upon completion of a single revolution of said drive wheel.24.
The invention as recited in claim 10, further including conveyor means disposed on said frame below said exposure station and adjacent the lower leg of said chamber for transporting said developed copy sheet from said developing means to a receptacle under said loading station.12.
The invention as recited in claim 1, wherein said developing means includes a generally U-shaped closed chamber having the legs thereof disposed in horizontal superposition on said frame, said chamber having sealed opening means on the end of each said leg adapted to pass said copy sheet therethrough, the upper leg of said chamber being disposed adjacent said exposing station for receiving an exposed copy sheet.11.
The owner of the factory, UCIL, was majority owned by UCC, with Indian Government-controlled banks and the Indian public holding a 49.1 percent stake.
In 1989, UCC paid 0 million (equivalent to 5 million in 2018) to settle litigation stemming from the disaster.
Dow Chemical Company purchased UCC in 2001, seventeen years after the disaster.
Civil and criminal cases filed in the United States against UCC and Warren Anderson, UCC CEO at the time of the disaster, were dismissed and redirected to Indian courts on multiple occasions between 19, as the US courts focused on UCIL being a standalone entity of India.
It is considered to be the world's worst industrial disaster. The Indian government and local activists argue that slack management and deferred maintenance created a situation where routine pipe maintenance caused a backflow of water into a MIC tank, triggering the disaster.