2016 (4) TMI 1450 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking an opinion of the Court a contingent on which would be the finalization of an agreement between the two parties - Order 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Gambling - games of skill - business activity, protected under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT - The petitioner submits that he does not wish any academic question to be answered and at this stage prays that permission may be granted to the parties to withdraw their reference which they had made before the Trial Judge. Permission is accordingly granted to the petitioner to withdraw this revision petition - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of whether games of skill are considered "business activity" protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
2. Determination of whether specific games like Rummy, Chess, Gold, Poker, Bridge, and Snooker qualify as games of skill.
3. Analysis of any restrictions on playing skill-based games with stakes on websites for profit.
4. Examination of whether wagering and betting on skill-based games constitute gambling.
5. Evaluation of potential restrictions on advertising and promoting websites offering skill-based games.
6. Consideration of whether banks can refuse normal banking services to websites conducting normal business activities.
7. Assessment of potential liability under penal laws for companies, directors, agents, and players offering games of skill.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court pertained to a petition filed under Order 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition involved seeking the Court's opinion on various queries related to the launch of an online gaming platform offering games like chess, billiards, rummy, poker, bridge, and snooker. The primary contention was whether these games, involving a mix of skill and chance, could be categorized as games of skill or gambling activities. The Court's analysis concluded that the games in question, due to the element of betting involved, could not be classified as games of skill. This decision was contrary to the petitioner's argument, citing precedents where competitive skill combined with a substantial exercise of skill was deemed non-gambling. Additionally, the petitioner referenced an RTI response from the Government of Nagaland asserting that poker, rummy, and bridge involve skill and are not gambling under the Gambling Act, 1867.

The petitioner, dissatisfied with the judgment, sought to withdraw the reference made before the Trial Judge. Permission was granted for the withdrawal of the revision petition, rendering the observations made in the Trial Judge's order no longer applicable. Consequently, the petition was deemed infructuous and disposed of accordingly.