Mr.Harish Salve, Sr.Advocate argued on the assumption that Mr.Sushil Ansal was the licensee of the Cinema. However, it has already been demonstrated through various documentary evidence by the defence that the licensee was the company and representative of the Company was Mr.R.M.Puri, Whole Time Director on the day of incident. Infact it has already been shown by the defence that Mr.Sushil Ansal and Mr.Gopal Ansal had resigned from the Board in October, 1988 i.e. almost 10 years before to the incident.
Shri Harish Salve, Sr.Advocate argued that the cause of fire was the DVB Transformer because of poor maintenance and bad repair by the DVB people and the smoke and toxic gases got generated from the Transformer Oil and that was the causa causan. The Uphaar Transformer is completely intact even today.
The prosecution argued that even if the sanction and approvals were obtained by the Uphaar Management with regard to placement of seats change of gangways and exit doors, still it needs to be examined whether the Licensing Authority has done it correctly or not. The Defence has already demonstrated through documents and oral evidence that all the arrangements were sanctioned / approved as per rules.
The prosecution also argued out certain deviations in the building and working of some commercial establishments in the Cinema Complex. The defence has already demonstrated that none of the alleged deviations were violative of the Building Bye Laws and none of them were causing hindrance in egress and ingress of the patrons.
The prosecution continued to argue that Ansal Brothers were involved in day to day running of the theatre whereas through the documentary and oral evidence, it has been demonstrated by the defence that they were not on the Board since 1988 and the Company was being run by Board of Professionals and Whole Time Director of the Company was Mr.R.M.Puri and Mr.K.L.Malhotra was its Dy.General Manager.
If there were irregularities in the Cinema Hall, the Fire Department, MCD, PWD, etc. would not have given NOC’s and the Licensing Authority would not have renewed the Licence / Permit from time to time over the last several years.
The full duty of care as expected by the Management with regard to provisions of public safety, they were in place otherwise the sanctioning authority would not have given clearances.
The whole basis of the prosecution argument has been on the wrong assumption that individual was the Licensee and not the Company. The defence in its arguments have already placed on record a letter dated 06-03-97 wherein it has been acknowledged by the Licensing Authority that the name of the controlling company of the Uphaar Cinema has been changed from Green Park Theatres Associated Pvt.Ltd. to Ansal Theatres & Clubotels Pvt.Ltd. Mr.R.M.Puri, the Whole Time Director and Mr.K.L.Malhotra, Dy.General Manager were the Authorised Representative of the Company for operating the Uphaar Cinema and for all dealings with the Licensing Authority (copy enclosed).
After the fire, the temporary permit was revoked by the Licensing Authority wherein it has been mentioned that the Licensee of Uphaar Cinema is M/s.Ansal. Theatres & Clubotels Pvt.Ltd.
