A Wagering Agreement Is Immoral

A football match between Group A and Team B is scheduled to start on June 30, 2016 in Mumbai. C and D will reach an agreement for C to pay 500 rus to D if Team A wins, and if Team B wins, D 500 Rus will pay C. It is a betting contract and it is a nullity. On behalf of the complainant (1), it was alleged that a betting contract not in force under p. 30 of the Contracts Act was also prohibited by law, within the meaning of S.23 of the Act, that (2) the concept of public order in India had been very broad since independence and that such a contract was contrary to public policy (3) , that the betting contracts were illegal under Hindu law and (4) that they were immoral. , examined by the doctrine of Hindu law of the religious obligation of the sons to pay the father`s debts. 4. Betting contracts are conditional contracts, while insurance contracts are compensation contracts, with the exception of life insurance contracts, which are quota contracts. The three decisions of the Privileges Council clearly define the legal situation in India prior to the passage of Act 21 of 1848, namely that betting contracts are governed by the common law of England and are not inadmissible and therefore enforceable in court. They also found that Hindu law did not prohibit such bets. Gherulal Parakh (complainant) and Mahadeodas Maiya (defendant Party 1) entered into a partnership to enter into futures contracts with two other companies for the purchase and sale of wheat, with the obligation to share the same profit or loss as the resulting one. As a result of the loss, the entire amount was paid by the respondent and the complainant challenged his liability for half of the damage, arguing to the defence that the agreement reached under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 was unlawful. The court dismissed the appeal.

High Court ruled that the betting contract was non-conclusive, but the purpose was not illegal and ordered the lawsuit. Hence this complaint. The results of this discussion are as follows: (1) Under the common law of England, a betting contract is valid, so that the primary contract and the related guarantee agreement are applicable; (2) After the passage of the Gambling Act of 1845, a bet is cancelled, but not illegal under a law prohibited by law, and subsequently a primary betting agreement is invalid, but a guarantee contract is enforceable; (3) There was a conflict as to whether the second part of the Gaming Act, 1845, would cover a case of recovery of money or valuables allegedly earned on (1) L.R. (1901) 1 K.B. 11. (2) (1896) 1 chap. 496. These findings must be understood in the context of the particular facts of this case. The complaint was between the parties to the bet. The question was whether the second part of the section in question was comprehensive enough to enter into an agreement to recover the money won on a bet within that party`s meaning. Fletcher Moulton, L.J., considered that the second part was broad enough and comprehensive enough to assert such a right, since the remedy, albeit on the basis of an alternative agreement, for the recovery of money earned on a bet in the sense of the words of that part of the section.

The second question that the qualified judge was considering was whether the defendant`s company, which was an association created for the purpose of a betting transaction, was a legal partnership under English law. The scholarly judge invoked the gambling law. In 1892, when he considered that it was not possible to have such a partnership under English law. At page 718, the scholarly judge noted that Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 is influenced by the English Gaming Act 1845. Heavily influenced by English decisions, the judges took up the essential features of the gambling law.