UPHAAR CINEMA CASE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT

Commissioner of Police Licensing who inspected Uphaar , had listed ten serious violations, however all remained uncorrected until the fire 14 years later. Four of the accused died, [29] and eight witnesses, mostly relatives of Ansals turned hostile witness , [30] despite High court responding to AVUT’s plea and asking trial court in , to expedite the case [5] Meanwhile, as the criminal trial dragged on, in , a presiding judge commented upon the repeated requests for adjournment as being intended to delay the case. Uphaar Cinema , the licensing branch of the Delhi Police, the Delhi Vidyut Board and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi were all responsible for having contributed to the spreading of fire and smoke by Abdullah 9 Feb 6: The Uphaar tragedy took place in the year whereas the accident in question took place on 04 th May, i. Against this order, the licensee obtained stay order on More than 50 years:

Railway Claims Tribunal 0. In that case, the conviction under Section A was altered to Part-II but reduced the period of sentence to the one already undergone and the court imposed a fine of Rs. Counsel for Respondent 1 Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy has handed over a chart to the Court incorporating calculations and quantifying the liability of the appellants herein in terms of the Mery Roy And Another… v. Similarly, the gangway on the right of the middle entrance was significantly narrower than required under the regulations. The lid of the pit was completely damaged. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.

Uphaar Cinema fIre: SC reserves verdict on review of 2015 ruling

Central Administrative Tribunal 2. This Court has applied the principles laid down in Uphaar tragedy supracase to compute the These appeals arise out of the judgment dated On the previous dates of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants had Himachal Pradesh High Court.

  DINNAE CAST A CLOUT TILL MAYS OUT

It cannot be seriously The writ petition by the association of the victims of Uphaar Tragedy was held to be maintainable by the High Court though an objection was raised to its This page was cinea edited on 6 Augustat In that casethe multiplier of Board Of Revenue, Uttarakhand 0. Debts Recovery Tribunal 0. These judgments are distinct.

Uphaar Cinema fire

The Division Bench held that the victims of the fire incident belonged to reasonably well-placed families and presumed the average income of the victims above age of 20 years to On charge of criminal negligence, apart from others, Sushil Ansal the licencee for running the cinema and his brother Gopal Ansal who was in fact conducting the business of cinema, were convicted under Sections A,read with Section 36, IPC.

Alister Anthony Pareira v.

It is also pertinent to mention that in the two judgments referred to by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, i. The facts as are necessary for the adjud AIR SC in which this Court enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants on account of death and injury uphaarr a fire tragedy in Uphaar Cinema Hall No Case or Topic can be added.

Orissa High Court 0. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Smoke started billowing in the northern and southward directions in the parking lot of the cinema complex. Sabeeha Faikage And Others v.

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Kerala High Court 0. The School was also expected to ensure that the Jammu and Kashmir High Court.

  REGARDER FILM AL KHATAYA

Uphaar Cinema fIre: SC reserves verdict on review of ruling

Supreme Court Of India Sharma A and N. First Appellate Authority 0. Thus, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also on perusal of the judgments rendered in the case of Uphaar Icnema as well as in the case of Union The Chairman And Man It may further be noted that it is not factually correct to assume that there was no difference of opinion for imposing at least one year sentence.

United India Insurance Co….

uphaar cinema case | India Judgments | Law | CaseMine

In parait was observed that Fifty-nine people, trapped in the balcony of the Uphaar theatre in south Delhi, had died of asphyxia following the fire and over were injured in the subsequent stampede on 13 June during the screening of Hindi film Border. The Division Bench held Cases cited for the legal proposition you have searched for.

The appeals have been filed before us by all those convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment by the High Court, except for the convicted gatekeeper, Manmohan Uniyal A-8 who has served out the sentence caase to him by the courts below. In that case, the conviction under Section A was altered to Part-II but reduced the period of sentence to the one already undergone and the court imposed a fine of Rs.