TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>'Rummy' Game Ruled Skill-based, Not Violating Gaming Act</h1> <h3>Executive Club formed by Lalitha Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., Vijayawada and Ors. Versus State of A.P.</h3> The court held that the game of 'Rummy' played by the petitioners is a game of skill and not covered by the A.P. Gaming Act, 1974. As a result, the court ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the game of 'Rummy' played by the petitioners falls under the purview of Sections 3 and 4 of the A.P. Gaming Act, 1974.2. Whether the premises of the Executive Club, Vijayawada, can be considered a 'common gaming house' under the A.P. Gaming Act, 1974.3. Whether the collection of maintenance amounts by petitioners Nos. 50 to 52 makes the card room a 'gaming house'.4. Whether the stakes involved in playing 'Rummy' affect the applicability of the A.P. Gaming Act, 1974.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Sections 3 and 4 of the A.P. Gaming Act, 1974 to the Game of 'Rummy':The petitioners were found playing 'Rummy' with thirteen cards. The counsel for the petitioners argued that 'Rummy' is a game of skill and is excluded from the purview of the Act under Section 15. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Satyanarayana, which held that 'Rummy' is not a game of pure chance but requires skill. The court concluded that 'Rummy' is a game of skill and thus, Sections 3 and 4 of the Act do not apply.2. Definition of 'Common Gaming House':The court examined the definition of a 'common gaming house' under Section 2 of the A.P. Gaming Act, 1974. The Supreme Court in the State of A.P. case observed that charging an extra fee for playing cards does not necessarily make a club a common gaming house. The court held that the Executive Club, Vijayawada, cannot be considered a 'common gaming house' merely because it permits the playing of 'Rummy' and charges a fee for maintenance.3. Collection of Maintenance Amounts:The police alleged that petitioners Nos. 50 to 52 collected amounts for the maintenance of the card room. The court held that the collection of maintenance amounts does not make the card room a 'gaming house' as long as the game played is 'Rummy', which is a game of skill.4. Stakes Involved in Playing 'Rummy':The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu, which held that competitions involving a substantial degree of skill are not gambling. The court concluded that the stakes involved in playing 'Rummy' do not affect its classification as a game of skill. Therefore, the provisions of the A.P. Gaming Act, 1974, do not apply, irrespective of the stakes.Conclusion:The court held that the proceedings against the petitioners under Cr.No.406/97 cannot continue as the game of 'Rummy' played by them is a game of skill and not covered by the A.P. Gaming Act, 1974. The court quashed the proceedings and directed the respondent to return the seized amounts to the first petitioner.Order:The petition is allowed, and the proceedings in Cr.No.406/97 on the file of P.S., Machavaram, Vijayawada City, are quashed. The respondent is directed to return the seized amounts to the first petitioner.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
