https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308200 Conflicting single-judge views on the scope of the statutory presumption under Section 6 of the Kerala Gaming Act, 1960 prompted reference to a larger bench. The court noted disagreement on whether seizure of cards and cash from persons playing cards could, by itself, attract the presumption that the premises was a common gaming house and that the persons present were there for gaming. Because the issue raised an important question of law and required authoritative clarification, the matter was referred to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for placement before a larger bench. The quash petition was not decided on merits. en-us Mon, 29 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jun 2023 20:48:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308200 Conflicting single-judge views on the scope of the statutory presumption under Section 6 of the Kerala Gaming Act, 1960 prompted reference to a larger bench. The court noted disagreement on whether seizure of cards and cash from persons playing cards could, by itself, attract the presumption that the premises was a common gaming house and that the persons present were there for gaming. Because the issue raised an important question of law and required authoritative clarification, the matter was referred to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for placement before a larger bench. The quash petition was not decided on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 29 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308200