High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2019-10-11Review petitions dismissed.

Review Petitions (RP Nos. 514/2019, 621/2019 and 656/2019) in WP(C) 35535/2018 and connected matters: Play Games 24x7 Private Limited; Head Digital Works Private Limited; Junglee Games India Private Limited v. Ramachandran K. and Circle Inspector of Police, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram District

Case / Petition Number:RP.No.514/2019 in WP(C). 35535/2018; RP.No.621/2019 in WP(C). 35535/2018; RP.No.656/2019 in WP(C). 35535/2018

Neutral Citation:null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.M. Shaffique
N. Anil Kumar
Judgment Date: 2019-10-11
Court Decision / Holding: In result, we do not find any ground to review the judgment. Review petitions are dismissed.
Final Disposition: Review petitions dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Play Games 24x7 Private Limited
Head Digital Works Private Limited
Junglee Games India Private Limited

Respondents

Ramachandran K., Secretary, Sopanam Arts and Sports Club, Angadipuram, Malappuram District
Circle Inspector of Police, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. P. Martin Jose (Play Games 24x7)
• Adv. P. Martin Jose (Head Digital Works)
• Adv. Harikrishnan S. (Junglee Games)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri K.K. Ravindranath, Addl. Advocate General

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a trio of review petitions filed by third-party players and platform providers against the Kerala High Court’s January 24, 2019 judgment holding that “playing rummy for stakes” within a club premises constitutes an offence under the Kerala Gaming Act, 1960, with police action permissible after compliance with section 5. The judgment also observed that section 14A enables government exemptions by Gazette notification, but no notification exempting rummy from the Act had been issued. The petitioners—Play Games 24x7 Pvt. Ltd.; Head Digital Works Pvt. Ltd.; and Junglee Games India Pvt. Ltd.—argue that rummy is a game of skill, not chance, and that the government notification under section 14A (SRO 1045/1976) exempts rummy from the Act when there is no side-betting, so online platforms should be protected and the matter considered on a case‑to‑case basis. They rely on State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Satyanarayana (AIR 1968 SC 825) to support the skill-based view and Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996) 2 SCC 226 for the analogy with non-gambling betting. Respondents contend that the Division Bench did not deal with online gaming per se and that exemption must be evaluated in a case-by-case manner; the review petitions, however, are dismissed, reaffirming the original judgment and its approach to exemptions and online play for stakes.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Gaming Act, 1960; Sec.5Kerala Gaming Act, 1960; Sec.14ASRO No.1045/1976 under Sec.14A of the Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Game of skill vs game of chance doctrine (skill predominates over chance)
Case-to-case basis approach for application of notification under Sec.14A
Exemption under Sec.14A subject to restrictions/conditions in the notification; no blanket exemption for all rummy games

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that rummy is a game of skill and not gambling. They rely on the 14A notification (SRO 1045/1976) to argue that exempting rummy from the Gaming Act is permissible where there is no side-betting, a condition they assert applies to online and offline platforms depending on conduct. They cite State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Satyanarayana (AIR 1968 SC 825) to support the skill-based view and Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996) 2 SCC 226 for equating betting with skill-based activities rather than gambling; they urge a case-by-case assessment for online rummy.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the Division Bench judgment did not address online gaming and that the notification under Sec.14A, though not brought to notice, does not automatically exempt rummy played for stakes. They emphasize that whether rummy with stakes constitutes gambling depends on the manner of play and the presence of side-betting; the matter must be decided on a case-by-case basis, and the review petitions do not warrant altering the earlier decision.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of A.P. v. K. Satyanarayana	AIR 1968 SC 825	Positive	Cited to support that rummy is not necessarily a game of pure chance and can involve skill.
Dr.K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu and another	(1996) 2 SCC 226	Positive	Cited for analogy that betting in horse racing is not gaming, reinforcing skill-based view.
K.Satyanarayana (supra)	AIR 1968 SC 825	Mentioned Only	Mentioned as supra; referenced in discussion but not central to the immediate reasoning.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Review Petitions (RP Nos. 514/2019, 621/2019 and 656/2019) in WP(C) 35535/2018 and connected matters: Play Games 24x7 Private Limited; Head Digital Works Private Limited; Junglee Games India Private Limited v. Ramachandran K. and Circle Inspector of Police, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram District and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR** **FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 19TH ASWINA, 1941** ## **RP.No.514 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 35535/2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 35535/2018(N) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **REVIEW PETITIONER:** **PLAY GAMES 24X7 PRIVATE LIMITED** **HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 401, 4TH FLOOR, BUILDING NO. 16,WING-B, INTERFACE COMPLEX, OFF LINK ROAD, MALAD(W), MUMBAI-400 067 REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT-FINANCE, LEGAL AND COMPLIANCE AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. MALAY KUMAR SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O. SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA SHUKLA.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NO.1:** - **1 RAMACHANDRAN.K AGED 42 YEARS,SECRETARY, SOPANAM ARTS AND SPORTS CLUB ANGADIPURAM - 679 321 PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** - **2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 679 321.** ## **R2 BY SRI.K.K.RAVINDRANATH, ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.9.2019, ALONG WITH RP.621/2019 & 656/19, THE COURT ON 11.10.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** RP No.514/2019 in WP(C) No.35535/18 & conn.cases -:2:- **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR** **FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 19TH ASWINA, 1941** **RP.No.656 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 35535/2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 35535/2018(N) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD PARTY:** **HEAD DIGITAL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PLOT NO.2, 1ST FLOOR, ASHI 19, ROSE AVENUE INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEW DELHI 110002.** **THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR.DEEPAK GULLAPALLI AGED 38 YEARS, S/O RAM PRASAD GULLAPALLI** **BY ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT:** **1 RAMACHANDRAN.K AGED 42 YEARS,SECRETARY, SOPANAM ARTS AND SPORTS CLUB ANGADIPURAM - 679 321 PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** RP No.514/2019 in WP(C) No.35535/18 & conn.cases -:3:- - **2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 679 321.** **R2 BY SRI.K.K.RAVINDRANATH, ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.9.2019, ALONG WITH RP.621/2019 & 514/19, THE COURT ON 11.10.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** RP No.514/2019 in WP(C) No.35535/18 & conn.cases -:4:- **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR** **FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 19TH ASWINA, 1941** **RP.No.621 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 35535/2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 35535/2018(N) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD PARTY:** **JUNGLEE GAMES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT UNIT 1201, DLF TOWER B, JASOLA DISTRICT CENTER, JASOLA, NEW DELHI 110044 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR.RAHUL NANDKUMAR BHARDWAJ, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O SHRI NAND KUMAR BHARDWAJ** ## **BY ADV. SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT:** **1 RAMACHANDRAN.K AGED 42 YEARS,SECRETARY, SOPANAM ARTS AND SPORTS CLUB ANGADIPURAM - 679 321 PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** RP No.514/2019 in WP(C) No.35535/18 & conn.cases -:5:- **2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 679 321.** ## **R2 SRI.K.K.RAVINDRANATH -ADDL.A.G** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.9.2019, ALONG WITH RP.656/2019 & 514/19, THE COURT ON 11.10.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** RP No.514/2019 in WP(C) No.35535/18 & conn.cases -:6:- ## **O R D E R** **[ RP.514/2019, RP.621/2019 & RP 656/2019 ] Dated this the 11[th] day of October 2019** ## _**Shaffique, J.**_ These review petitions are filed by third parties seeking review of judgment dated 24/1/2019 in WP(C) No. 35535/2018 by which this Court held that “playing rummy for stakes” within the club premises is an offence under the Kerala Gaming Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and it shall be open for the police to take appropriate action after complying with Section 5 of the Act. While delivering the aforesaid judgment, it has also been observed that though under Sec.14A of the Act, the Government can exempt by way of notification in the Gazette any game from the provisions of the Act subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified in the notification, no such notification has been issued by the Government exempting the playing of rummy for stakes from its purview. RP No.514/2019 in WP(C) No.35535/18 & conn.cases -:7:- 2. The review petitioners are Companies who are involved in creating and managing offline or online competitions through websites managed by them. That is they provide facilities for any person to use their website and participate in playing various games including rummy. It is _inter alia_ contended that in so far as rummy is a game of stake and the Government had issued a notification dated 30/9/1976, exempting rummy from the provisions of the Act subject to the only condition that there would be no side-betting, the finding of the Division Bench of this Court in the impugned judgment without taking note of the notification dated 30/9/1976 issued under Sec.14A of the Act requires to be reviewed. 3. In fact in _**State of A.P. v.K.Satyanarayana**_ (AIR 1968 SC 825), the Apex Court held that it cannot be said that rummy is a game of chance and there is no skill involved in it. However, it was observed that if there is evidence of gambling in some other way or that the owners of the house is making a profit or gain from the game of rummy or any other game played for stakes, the offence may be brought home. 4. A perusal of the impugned judgment would indicate RP No.514/2019 in WP(C) No.35535/18 & conn.cases -:8:- that this Court was not concerned with the manner in which online rummy for stakes was being played. 5. Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners would contend after reference to the judgment in _**Dr.K.R.Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu and another**_ [(1996) 2 SCC 226] that when betting in horse race is not considered as gaming, the same analogy applies. Rummy is a game of mere skill and even if it is played for stakes, it can never be treated as a gambling and, that apart, in view of the notification u/s 14A of the Act, the provisions of the Act will have no application. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Ravindranath K.K. submitted that the judgment does not call for review at the instance of the petitioners as the issue regarding online gaming was not under consideration by the Division Bench. Of course, it is conceded that the notification dated 30/9/1976 was not brought to the notice of the Court. But it is argued that what is exempted from the provisions of the Act is playing rummy. But if rummy is played with stakes, as decided in _**K.Satyanarayana**_ (supra) or as provided under the notification, RP No.514/2019 in WP(C) No.35535/18 & conn.cases -:9:- there is side betting, it amounts to gambling and the Gaming Act clearly applies. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that in view of the notification, playing rummy is excluded from the provisions of the Act and in the impugned judgment the Division Bench has also held that the element of skill is predominant than the element of chance. But the question is whether if rummy is played for stakes, will it amount to violation of the provisions of the Gaming Act or not. We are of the view that this aspect of the matter has to be decided on a case to case basis. What is the manner in which the games are conducted and how it is being conducted through online methods and what are the stakes involved in the matter are all issues which may arise for consideration. If it is just playing rummy without any side betting, the notification protects the parties involved in it. But, in a case where rummy is played for stakes, the issue might be different which has to be dealt with on a case to case basis. Therefore, the application of notification SRO No.1045/1976 will have to be adjudged depending on a case to case basis. RP No.514/2019 in WP(C) No.35535/18 & conn.cases -:10:- In the result, we do not find any ground to review the judgment. Review petitions are dismissed. Sd/- ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **JUDGE** Sd/- Rp True Copy PS to Judge **N.ANIL KUMAR JUDGE**