TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Supreme Court Remands Online Rummy Case due to Lack of Consideration</h1> The Supreme Court found that the High Court of Judicature at Madras did not address the issue of online rummy in its judgment. As a result, since the ... Gambling or not - online rummy - HELD THAT:- The judgment in THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE STATE OF TAMIL NADU CHENNAI AND ORS. VERSUS MAHALAKSHMI CULTURAL ASSOCIATION [2012 (3) TMI 710 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, has not at all dealt with online rummy. In fact, learned counsel for the respondents states that they have not yet taken any decision whether online rummy falls foul of the law or not. Under these circumstances, since there is no discussion at all in regard to online rummy in the impugned judgment and order, it is not necessary to entertain these petitions, the issue being res integra - it is made clear that the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras has not dealt with online rummy and, therefore, any observations made in the impugned judgment and order may not necessarily relate to online rummy. Petition disposed off. Issues Involved:1. Lack of discussion on online rummy in the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras.2. Whether the petitions should be entertained due to the absence of consideration of online rummy.3. Confirmation of acquittal in a trial.Analysis:1. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court of Judicature at Madras, in its judgment and order dated 22nd March, 2012, did not address the issue of online rummy. The respondents' counsel confirmed that no decision had been made on whether online rummy violates any laws. Consequently, the Supreme Court found that since the High Court's decision did not cover online rummy, there was no need to consider the petitions as the matter was 'res integra,' meaning it remained unresolved. The Supreme Court clarified that any remarks in the High Court's decision did not pertain to online rummy, leading to the disposal of the petitions.2. In another set of petitions, the petitioner's counsel informed the court that the petitioner had been acquitted in the trial. The court scheduled the matters for further listing on 18th August, 2015, to confirm the acquittal. This issue did not involve the online rummy aspect but focused on the confirmation of the petitioner's acquittal in the trial.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
