<?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>2016 (10) TMI 1380 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307950</link>
    <description>A restrictive condition on play of games of skill in club premises could not stand where it conflicted with the statutory protection for pure games of skill. Section 176 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 was overlooked in framing the earlier direction, even though it excludes the restrictions in Sections 79 and 80 for pure games of skill and for wagering by participants in such games. The Court noted that rummy has been recognised as a game predominantly of skill, and held that retaining the words &quot;without stakes&quot; would invite inconsistency and misinterpretation. The review petition was allowed and those words were deleted from Condition No. 3(iv).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 May 2023 21:20:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=713964" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 1380 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307950</link>
      <description>A restrictive condition on play of games of skill in club premises could not stand where it conflicted with the statutory protection for pure games of skill. Section 176 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 was overlooked in framing the earlier direction, even though it excludes the restrictions in Sections 79 and 80 for pure games of skill and for wagering by participants in such games. The Court noted that rummy has been recognised as a game predominantly of skill, and held that retaining the words &quot;without stakes&quot; would invite inconsistency and misinterpretation. The review petition was allowed and those words were deleted from Condition No. 3(iv).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307950</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>