As far as guarantees are concerned, betting agreements are non-friendly, but they are not illegal, they are not agreeable. That is why they are enforceable. For z.B. if a person lends money to another person to pay a gambling debt, the lender can recover the money thus paid. Treating an agreement as a gamble as a nullity is that the law prevents people from participating in gambling and earning money by trying their luck, instead of using their time, energy and work for more fruitful and useful work for themselves, their families and society; Subhash Kumar Manwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2000 MP 109. Illustration A cricket match starts in Delhi between India and Australia. If India wins the match, Pallav agrees to pay Nishant Rs. 2000, while if Australia wins the match, Nishant agrees to pay the Rs. 2000 in Pallav. One of the main elements of a betting agreement is that it must depend on an uncertain event. The event may be past, present or future, but the parties do not have to realize their future, the timing of their results or when they occur.

The parties to a betting agreement agree on the nature of the agreement, which both parties will win. Each game is equal to win or lose the bet. The chance to win or the risk of loss is not one-sided. If one of the parties can win, but can not lose, or can lose, but can not win, it is a betting contract. UK Gaming Act, 1845 is the main act that inspired other nations to make betting laws. Section 18 of the United Kingdom Gambling Act[7] 1845 provides that all betting agreements are null and void. No court can take legal action to recover money from betting. However, in this section, certain transactions involving investments in business are exempt from nullity. Section 30 of the Contracts Act is influenced by this act.

But there is a small difference in India`s betting law from England`s competition law, that is; In India, the primary wager agreement is null and void, but the collateral agreement is valid and applicable. And in England, all the collateral agreements of the betting agreement do not agree. Agreements as a bet are not considered; and no legal action is brought for debt collection or entrusted to a person to stick to the results of a game or other uncertain event on which a bet is made. Another element of the betting agreement is that each party should win or lose depending on the uncertain event. The only interest that both parties should have is the bet to win or lose if the uncertain event occurs. If one of the parties has interests other than the amount at stake, it does not constitute a bet. As mentioned above, a number of Indian companies make an argument in the event of losses on foreign exchange transactions in which derivatives transactions are unenforceable in the nature of betting agreements and, therefore, in Indian courts under Section [xxi] and therefore do not create any financial liability or obligation with respect to the repayment of loans to the bank. As a result, many conservative Indian banks, such as the State Bank of India, have long given up on derivatives trading with their customers.

In Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya[xxii], the question arose as to whether a partnership established to enter into futures contracts for the purchase and sale of wheat to speculate in the future on the rise and fall in the price of wheat was a gamble and whether it was concerned with Section 30 of the Contracts Act. But the Supreme Court ruled that such a partnership was not illegal, although the case for which the partnership was created was considered a wage.

You may also like