9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, has not at all dealt with online rummy. In fact, learned counsel for the respondents states that they have not yet taken any decision whether online rummy falls foul of the law or not. Under these circumstances, since there is no discussion at all in regard to online rummy in the impugned judgment and order, it is not necessary to entertain these petitions, the issue being res integra - it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k Karanjawala, Adv., for M/s. Karanjawala Co., Mr. Dushyant Parashar, AOR For the Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Subramonium Prasad, Sr. Adv., Mr. B. Balaji, AOR, Mr. R. Rakesh Sharma, Adv., Ms. Apoorva Garg, Adv.,Mr. Anish Agarwal, Adv., Mrs. Shase, Adv., Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR, Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, Adv., Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv., Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, Adv. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lt with online rummy and, therefore, any observations made in the impugned judgment and order may not necessarily relate to online rummy. With these observations, these petitions are disposed of. SLP(C) Nos. 15371/2012, 15568/2015, W.P.(C) Nos. 1060/2013, 1061/2013, 1073/2013, 859/2014, 402/2014, 200/2014 It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner in SLP(C) No. 15371/2012 that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
