Court denies adjournment for filing documents, affirms fantasy sports as games of skill. Dismisses Special Leave Petitions.

The court refused an adjournment for filing additional documents as it had been previously adjourned for the same reason. The court noted that fantasy sports were not considered gambling but games of skill, dismissing similar matters previously. Special Leave Petitions from Punjab & Haryana High Court and Bombay High Court were dismissed, indicating a settled issue. In a Bombay High Court case, the Union and State of Maharashtra were not heard, leading to a stay of judgment. The current Special Leave Petition was dismissed due to past dismissals and the distinct nature of the Union and State matter. The application to intervene was not addressed, with directions to move it before the appropriate forum.

---

---

Issues:
1. Adjournment sought for filing additional documents.
2. Interpretation of fantasy sports as gambling or games of skill.
3. Dismissal of Special Leave Petitions from Punjab & Haryana High Court and Bombay High Court.
4. Stay of judgment in the Bombay High Court case due to non-hearing of Union and State of Maharashtra.
5. Dismissal of the current Special Leave Petition.
6. Application to intervene in the matter involving the Union and the State of Maharashtra.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought an adjournment for filing additional documents, which was refused by the court as the matter had been adjourned previously for the same reason.

2. The petitioner referred to a judgment from the State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, dated 06.02.2020, claiming that fantasy sports are considered pure gambling and not games of skill. However, the court noted that similar matters had been previously dismissed by the Supreme Court.

3. Special Leave Petitions from the Punjab & Haryana High Court and Bombay High Court had been dismissed by the Supreme Court on earlier dates, indicating that the issue had already been settled.

4. In the Bombay High Court case, the Union and the State of Maharashtra were not heard, leading to an order for notice issuance and stay of the judgment on 06.03.2020. This highlighted the importance of all relevant parties being given an opportunity to present their arguments.

5. Given the dismissal of similar Special Leave Petitions in the past and the distinct nature of the Union and State matter, the current Special Leave Petition was also dismissed by the Supreme Court.

6. The application to intervene in the matter involving the Union and the State of Maharashtra was not addressed by the court, with directions to move it before the appropriate forum. Pending applications were disposed of as part of the judgment.

---