Justice Valmiki J. Mehta of the Delhi HC reiterated the law stated in the 1967 Supreme Court ruling of State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Satyanarayana and proved that playing the game of rummy ( card game) with small stakes from a few annas to some rupees does not amount to gambling.
Mehta quoted the 1967 Supreme Court judgment that stated that rummy was not entirely a game of luck and that there was a preponderant element of skill involved in the rummy game.
The Delhi HC has considered a lower court’s observation and agreed that playing rummy( a card game), with small stakes at a club does not amount to gambling.
Justice Valmiki J. Mehta’s observation came on an appeal filed by Suresh Kumar, challenging a trial court order requiring him to pay INR 3 lakh to the Central Secretariat Club for filing a false police complaint.
“The trial court, in my opinion, also has rightly held that merely because the card game was played in the club premises with small stakes from a few annas to some rupees would not make it gambling as held by the Supreme Court,” Justice Mehta said.
Mr. Kumar, a former employee of the Central Secretariat Club, filed a complaint that a “mafia” operated the club and allowed gambling within its premises. The trial court had, however, concluded that Mr.Kumar had failed to discharge the burden of proof on him.
The high court considered the lower court’s observations and agreed that Mr Kumar was “frustrated” as he had been fired by the club over misconduct.
“I completely agree with the discussion, reasoning, and conclusion of the trial court because the complaint filed by the appellant (Mr. Kumar) was on account of his frustration of having been removed from the services of the club and the allegations made by him were not bonafidely made…,” he said.
“They were made either as a revenge or to pressurise the high-profile club to take him back in service (along) with the fact that complaint was made after around two years of him being removed from the services with the club,” the court said.