• HOME»
  • »
  • Delhi High Court reserves order on web series based  on Uphaar cinema tragedy

Delhi High Court reserves order on web series based  on Uphaar cinema tragedy

The Delhi High court postponed making a ruling on the petition filed by real estate industrialist Sushil Ansal seeking a temporary halt to the streaming of the upcoming Netflix series “Trial by Fire”, which is based on the tragic Uphaar fire. On 13 January, the series is expected to be launched. A permanent and mandatory […]

Advertisement
Delhi High Court reserves order on web series based  on Uphaar cinema tragedy

The Delhi High court postponed making a ruling on the petition filed by real estate industrialist Sushil Ansal seeking a temporary halt to the streaming of the upcoming Netflix series “Trial by Fire”, which is based on the tragic Uphaar fire. On 13 January, the series is expected to be launched.

A permanent and mandatory injunction against the series as well as a ban on the publication and distribution of the book titled “Trial by fire- The tragic Tale of the uphaar Tragedy” are sought by Ansal in the lawsuit. Justice Yashwant Varma has reserved the decision on this application.

Neelam and Shekhar Krishnamoorty, who lost their two young children in the year 1997 fire catastrophe, are the authors of the book. Neelam also serves as the chair of the Association of the victims of the Uphaar Tragedy, which has fought long and hard for justice for Sushil and Gopal Ansal.

In November 2021, a CMM Court sentenced Gopal Ansal and his brother Sushil Ansal to seven years in prison each for tampering with evidence in the tragic 1997 Uphaar fire. However , the session court lowered it to the already completed period in july on last year, thus they were released after serving little over eight months of the total sentence.

The impugned series has a disclaimer noting that it is a “work of fiction”, yet Ansal’s real name is used three times in the trailer, hurting his reputation and other rights, senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal arguing on his client’s behalf told the court.           

Advertisement