<?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>2012 (6) TMI 929 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456998</link>
    <description>Rummy and Bridge played in a club did not, on the stated facts, by themselves establish gambling under the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, because the material did not show a common gaming house, a fixed commission, or any other statutory ingredient; mere presence of counters or cash was insufficient, and the FIR was liable to be quashed. The Court also held that arresting women after sunset without compliance with the prescribed Criminal Procedure Code safeguards was illegal, and the high-handed overnight detention of women and senior citizens violated personal liberty. Relief was therefore granted for unlawful detention, including compensation, and the criminal proceedings were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2024 15:58:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=765935" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (6) TMI 929 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456998</link>
      <description>Rummy and Bridge played in a club did not, on the stated facts, by themselves establish gambling under the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, because the material did not show a common gaming house, a fixed commission, or any other statutory ingredient; mere presence of counters or cash was insufficient, and the FIR was liable to be quashed. The Court also held that arresting women after sunset without compliance with the prescribed Criminal Procedure Code safeguards was illegal, and the high-handed overnight detention of women and senior citizens violated personal liberty. Relief was therefore granted for unlawful detention, including compensation, and the criminal proceedings were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456998</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>