Like the English Common Law, which does not recognize a principle of public policy, which declares betting contracts illegal, The Indian courts found, both before and after the passage of 408 Act 21 of 1848 and after the passage of the Indian Contract Act of 1872, that betting contracts were not illegal and that serial sales contracts were legally applicable. “Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act does not affect any agreement or transaction of guarantees on bets………”. These decisions were based on the well-established principle that a betting contract was null and simple, but not illegal, and that a guarantee contract could therefore be applied. Section 2: “There is no recourse to a court to recover commissions, brokerage freedoms or rewards with respect to knowingly executing or performing, or knowledge that, in the event of execution or any other claim or obligation, concerning such agreements through gambling or betting , or such contracts, as stated above, whether or not the plaintiff is a party to such an action or agreement, or for the recovery of a sum of money that is knowingly paid or payable to persons such as a commission, brokerage fee or reward in relation to such an agreement through gambling or betting or contracts as shown above. “The reflection or purpose of an agreement is lawful, unless it is prohibited by law or the Court deems it immoral or contrary to public order. … Arrah`s complaint, which is the case of the complainant. The complaint is confusing and contradictory. It is alleged that the complainant entered into an agreement on the evolution of gambling and betting, but that he… the “head agreement”, the agreement to sell games and bets, was concluded in Arrah, it does not dispute that the contract of November 24, 1939 in Calcutta was signed by the… Kumar Jain in The 1940.In`s Appeal 1 No. 2053 which accuses the applicant`s complainant company that, by an agreement of 24 November 1939, the complainants, by their senior agents, the Howrah… The majority of the judges found that the ensuing agreement was supported by a good counterparty, while Fletcher Moulton, L.J., objected to this view.
You will find the base of the different view on page 712. After reading on page 18 of the Gaming Act, 1845, the scholarly judge continued to state: In the case of Northern India General Insurance Co. Ltd. Bombay Vs. Kanwarjit Singh Sobti, the owner of a truck illegally transferred it to another party. Subsequently, a serious accident occurred, injuring a young army officer that caused serious damage to the owner, Benamidar and insurance. A plea was made that a Benamidar had no insurable interest and therefore was a gamble. These grounds were rejected by the court and it was decided that there was an insurable interest and that the Benamidar was required to pay the damage to the young army officer. An interesting interpretation of this case was that, although all illegal agreements are nullified and unenforceable, not all non-legal agreements are illegal or immoral or contrary to public order.
Although all betting agreements are null and private and are not yet applicable in a betting agreement, it is therefore important to verify whether such an agreement is also illegal under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, in order to verify its legality. There is no answer to an action by the broker with respect to such a claim against its principle that; For the defendant, he entered into the contract as a bet with the intention of paying only the differences; and that the plaintiff must have known of the defendant`s inability to enter into the contracts through payments and deliveries, given his position and means.