of course NO.. In my view, "The test of determining if a game is 'gambling' is whether dominant element is chance or skill. However, the legislation in India also does not define what "skill" means in the context of gambling. Based upon the interpretation of the courts in India it can be safely concluded that a game that does not involve skill or is a mixed game of chance and skill would not be treated as lawful in India." In the case of M.J. Sivani and Ors. V. State of Karnataka and Ors. 1995 6 SCC 289 the Supreme Court held that when in a game the element of chance strongly preponderate, it cannot be game of mere skill. It has further been held by the Supreme Court of India, in Dr. KR Lakshmanan V.State of Tamil Nadu (1996) 2 SCC 226 that gaming is an act or practice of gambling on a game of chance. It is staking on chance where chance is the controlling factor. The test of determining if a game is 'gambling', is whether dominant element is chance or skill. It is also pertinent to note that no foreign direct investment is allowed in the betting/gambling/lottery industry in India. This rule is unambiguous and strictly applied. As the Internet is still evolving, the laws will take some time catching up. The Indian legislature prohibits gambling in general and the same has been construed with regard to gambling on the Internet. However, unlike the American Internet Gambling Prohibition Act (Kyl's Bill), the Indian Government has as of date not implemented any specific law to deal with the issue of Internet Gambling. Although there are no laws that bar internet gambling specifically, the official government stance is that the existing laws governing gambling offline is sufficient enough to curb Internet gambling as well. Besides, attempts at banning online gambling present technological and legal problems that the Indian government is not well equipped to counter. This is mainly for the reason that, tracking and locating Internet gambling activities has been a difficult task, exercising jurisdiction over these operations has been equally strenuous. Most gambling sites are situated offshore; outside the jurisdiction of Indian courts, making enforcement of punishment awarded by Indian authorities is difficult but not impossible. The India IT Act has extra territorial jurisdiction with regard to computer related offence committed in India. Besides personal jurisdiction has also been exercised in several international cases involving the internet and the court asserted personal jurisdiction based on the nature of the 'gambling operations' web sited coupled with the intent to solicit business with residents of the other states as in US case Missouri ex rel. Nixon v. Interactive Gaming & Communications Corp and also in In State of Minnesota v. Granite Gate Resorts, Inc.." Besides, many of the online betting websites are hosted in countries where such activity is legal and companies can contend that their activities are legal in countries where they operate and hence Indian laws cannot shut them down. Secondly, loss of evidence is a common problem since all data is routinely destroyed and collection of evidence from outside the territorial extent paralyses the system. It is also impossible to prevent a site that has been blocked from quickly changing its Web address and resuming operations. Although there are no laws that bar internet gambling specifically, the official government stance is that the existing laws governing gambling offline is sufficient enough to curb Internet gambling as well.