Kopar Khairane

Delhi Court Orders De-Sealing Of Cinema Premises Following 1997 Uphaar Fire Tragedy

<p>A Delhi court ordered the de-sealing of the Uphaar cinema hall on Wednesday, stating that “absolutely no purpose would be served to keep the property sealed” after 59 moviegoers died there in a devastating fire in 1997.<img decoding=”async” class=”alignnone wp-image-107529″ src=”https://www.theindiaprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/theindiaprint.com-download-69.jpg” alt=”” width=”1467″ height=”976″ srcset=”https://www.theindiaprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/theindiaprint.com-download-69.jpg 275w, https://www.theindiaprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/theindiaprint.com-download-69-150×100.jpg 150w” sizes=”(max-width: 1467px) 100vw, 1467px” /></p>
<p>The court observed that Neelam Krishnamoorthy, head of the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT), the Delhi Police, and the CBI had previously informed the Supreme Court that they had “no objection” to the theater being handed back to the petitioner.</p>
<p>Ansal Theatres and Club Hotels Private Ltd., whose previous directors were real estate moguls Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal, who were found guilty in the case involving the fire catastrophe, made the application.</p>
<p>“Keeping the property sealed would serve absolutely no use now that the trial has reached its conclusion. As a result, the application is approved, and the court ordered that the property in issue be delivered to the applicant, who is the legitimate owner.</p>
<p>Krishnamoorthy’s request for appropriate action against the applicant for providing a copy of a Supreme Court decision in the matter but purposefully cutting out a few words at the bottom of a page to mislead the court was denied by the judge. The judge characterized it as “inadvertently” done.</p>
<p>Krishnamoorthy said the petitioner altered the court file. She emphasized that in the instance for which they were even found guilty, a FIR was filed against the directors of the applicant firm for tampering with court documents.</p>
<p>The court took notice of the applicant’s attorney’s testimony that there was “no deliberate attempt to conceal these lines from the said judgment and it happened inadvertently,” according to that attorney.</p>
<p>“In the opinion of this court, the applicant could not have benefited in any way from the suppression of these lines in order to have this application decided in its favor. As a result, the judge rejected Neelam Krishnamoorthy’s argument that the petitioner had tampered with the court record.</p>
<p>According to the application, the owner of Uphaar Cinema has been without possession of the building since 1997, and further depriving the applicant of its property would be ineffective. According to the letter, the property had fallen into disrepair as a result of neglect and was being squandered.</p>
<p>The property that the police have confiscated cannot be kept for any longer than is absolutely required, thus there would be no benefit if the current application were denied. As the trial and appeals are over, it is argued that the preservation of Uphaar Cinema has fulfilled its intended purpose.</p>
<p>Ansal Theatres and Club Hotels Private Ltd were given permission by the Supreme Court on April 27 to petition the trial court for the de-sealing of the movie theater.</p>

Related posts

Climate Crisis Causes Record-High Prices for Olive Oil

Chandrayaan to Enter Lunar Orbit Today, 3 Inches Closer to the Moon

Kerala businessman commits himself; family claims private bank had harassed him