<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1995 (4) TMI 284 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166614</link>
    <description>Video games involving stakes or money&#039;s worth were treated as gaming where chance substantially operated, even if some skill was present, and the activity was therefore liable to licensing and regulation under the police laws. Regulatory conditions restricting certain games and student participation were upheld as reasonable measures in the public interest, aimed at preventing gambling, exploitation, and harm to young persons, and were not found to infringe Articles 19(1)(g), 21 or 14. The licensing scheme was also sustained because the authority could regulate and refuse licences on recorded reasons, and a universal prior personal hearing was not required, subject to fairness where adverse material was relied upon.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=366766" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (4) TMI 284 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166614</link>
      <description>Video games involving stakes or money&#039;s worth were treated as gaming where chance substantially operated, even if some skill was present, and the activity was therefore liable to licensing and regulation under the police laws. Regulatory conditions restricting certain games and student participation were upheld as reasonable measures in the public interest, aimed at preventing gambling, exploitation, and harm to young persons, and were not found to infringe Articles 19(1)(g), 21 or 14. The licensing scheme was also sustained because the authority could regulate and refuse licences on recorded reasons, and a universal prior personal hearing was not required, subject to fairness where adverse material was relied upon.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166614</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>