<?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>2020 (2) TMI 1062 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392618</link>
    <description>Fantasy sports such as Dream 11 were treated as games of skill because user knowledge, judgment, attention and strategy were held to predominate, and the presence of chance did not by itself convert the activity into gambling or betting. The reasoning also noted that game-of-skill activity falls outside the mischief of the gambling law regime referred to in the record, including the skill-based exemption under the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949. Relying on earlier decisions and the settled position reflected in connected proceedings, the controversy was treated as no longer open for reconsideration, and the petition was rejected on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2020 12:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=604998" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 1062 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392618</link>
      <description>Fantasy sports such as Dream 11 were treated as games of skill because user knowledge, judgment, attention and strategy were held to predominate, and the presence of chance did not by itself convert the activity into gambling or betting. The reasoning also noted that game-of-skill activity falls outside the mischief of the gambling law regime referred to in the record, including the skill-based exemption under the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949. Relying on earlier decisions and the settled position reflected in connected proceedings, the controversy was treated as no longer open for reconsideration, and the petition was rejected on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392618</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>