This document provides an overview of wagers under Indian law. It defines a wager as a contract where parties agree that money or something of value will be paid to one party depending on the outcome of an uncertain future event that the parties have no interest in other than possible financial gain or loss. Key characteristics of wagers are outlined, and wagering contracts are distinguished from valid commercial transactions, lotteries, competitions, and insurance contracts. Special cases like stock market deals and crossword puzzles are also examined to determine whether they constitute legal wagers or not.

1. NAME : AKSHATA SANJAY MHATRE
ROLL NO. : 1418
SUBJECT : LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS AND
TAXATION
TOPIC : WAGER

2. INDEX
I. INTRODUCTION
II. DEFINITION OF WAGER
III. CHARACTERISTICS
IV. WAGERING CONTRACT
V. ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF A WAGER
VI. SPECIAL CASES
VII. AGREEMENT BY WAY OF WAGER
VIII. SECTION
IX. CASE
X. CONCLUSION
XI. BIBILOGRAPHY

3. INTRODUCTION:
A wager is illegal at common law. 15 C.30 . All wagering contracts are void by statute and
money deposited with stakeholder is recoverable. Id.; 40 C. 336; 49 C. 128; 70 C. 490. What
constitutes gaming contract in margin transactions in stocks; distinguished from speculating
contracts. 48 C. 127; 63 C. 198. Contract of insurance upon another’s life may amount to mere
wagering contract. 69 C. 511; 70 C. 647. Speculative stock transactions, where there is an
option to demand delivery. 77 C. 508; Id., 518; 84 C. 694. Cited. 125 C. 120. Gambling on credit
is the vice at which this statute and Sec. 52-554 are particularly directed. 189 C. 591. Parties’
contract is not unenforceable under section because it would be contrary to the statutory
scheme as a whole to conclude that agreement to share the spoils of legal wagering is illegal
and unenforceable. 293 C. 17.
Section is not applicable to written agreement where parties agreed to share equally in any
winnings they received from various forms of legalized gambling. 105 CA 663; judgment
affirmed on alternate grounds, refer 293 C. 17.
Where plaintiff sued to recover indebtedness from defendants, which claim arose from
winnings from a bet made in violation of Sec. 53-298, held the court will not aid party to an
illegal contract in enforcing his claim and, since all the parties were in pari delicto, judgment
should be rendered for defendants. 26 CS 238. Cited. 33 CS 170; 35 CS 522. Money wagered is
recoverable from stakeholder. 15 C. 31; 40 C. 336. Under former statute, a negotiable check
given by the stakeholder to the winner for the amount wagered was void even in the hands of a
bona fide holder. 36 C. 463. Legislation re gaming reviewed. 70 C. 490. Statute embraces all
events mentioned in Sec. 52-553; allows recovery of money lost and paid in bet on a horse race.
100 C. 545. Not necessary to state details of bets in complaint. 125 C. 116. No credit for bets
won by defendant. Id., 121. Claim for share of fund increased by betting in Rhode Island,
though valid there, contravenes our public policy and cannot be enforced in our courts. 134 C.
52. Gambling on credit is the vice at which this statute and Sec. 52-553 are particularly directed.
189 C. 591.
Cited. 33 CS 170. Statute does not extend to legalized gambling authorized by Sec. 12-557 et
seq. 37 CS 88.

4. What is WAGER?
A wager is a contract by which two or more parties agree that a certain sum of money or other
thing shall be paid or delivered to one of them on the happening of an uncertain event or upon
the ascertainment of a fact which is in dispute between them.
A contract in which the parties stipulate that they shall gain or lose upon the happening of an
uncertain event in which they have no interest, except that arising from the possibility of such
gain or loss.
FOR EXAMPLE :
I. A and B bet as to whether it would rain on a particular day or not A promising to pay
Rs.100 to B if it rained, and B promising an equal amount to A , if it did not. This
agreement is wager.
II. A and B agree to deal with the differences in prices of a particular commodity. Such an
agreement is a wager.
CHARACTERISTICS:
From the above, we can state that a Wager must have the following characteristics:
a. It is a promise to pay money or money’s worth.
b. The promise depends upon the happening or not happening of an event.
c. The event upon which the promise is to depend is uncertain, the parties do not know the
occurrence of the event.
d. None of the parties has a control on the occurrence of the uncertain event.
e. None of the parties has an interest in the occurrence or non-occurrence of the event. We can
explain our point with the help of the following examples:-

5. 1. On a cloudy day, A bets Rs. 10 with B that it will rain, B being of the view that it shall not rain.
A says to B, if it rains he will receive Rs. 10 from B, but it is does not rain A shall pay Rs. 10 to B.
It is a Wager.
2. A lottery is also a wager since it is a game of chance. An agreement to buy a ticket for a
lottery is also a wagering agreement. When the lottery is authorized by the state, the person
conducting the lottery is not punished, but that does not make the lottery a valid one, it
remains a wagering transaction.
A wager may have all other requisites of a legal contract. It may have two or more parties’
consideration, subject matter and the identity of minds of the parties. But the peculiarity lies in
its performance. Its performance is in the alternative, i.e., one party has to pay the amount to
the other. Only one party is to gain and the other is to lose.
There is no difference between the expression ‘gaming and wagering’ used in the English
Statute and repealed by Indian Contract Act XXI of 1848, and the expression ‘by way of wager’
used in this section.
Transactions which are not Wager :
1. Prize competitions, according to the Prize Competition Act, 1955 in games of skill, if the prize
does not exceed Rs. 100. Crossword puzzle is such an example, since it depends upon the skill.
2. Games of skill like athletic competition, wrestling bouts.
3. Subscription or contribution or an agreement to subscribe or contribute, towards any prize,
plate or sum of money to be awarded to the winners of the horse race.
4. Tezi Mandir transactions or deals in shares and stocks, where the party’s intention is to
deliver the goods or securities.
5. Insurance contracts.

6. WAGERING CONTRACT:
‘A wagering contract is one by which two persons professing to hold opposite views touching
the issue of a future uncertain event mutually agree independent upon the determination of
that event, one shall win from the and the other shall pay or hand over to him, a sum of money
or other neither of the contracting parties having any other interest ill that contract than the
sum of stake he will so win or lose, there being ‘no other real consideration ‘for the making of
such contract by either of the parties. It is essential to a wagering contract that each party may
under it either win or lose, whether he will win or lose being dependent on the issue of the
event, and, therefore, remaining ‘uncertain until that issue is known. If either’ of the parties
may win but cannot lose, or may lose but cannot win, it is not a wagering contract.
ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF A WAGER:
The essentials of a wagering agreement may thus be summarized as follows:
(a) There must be a promise to pay money or money’s worth
(b) The promise must be conditional on an event’s happening or not happening
(c) The event must be an uncertain one. If one of the parties has the event in his own hands,
the transaction is not a wager.
(d) Each party must stand to win or lose under the terms of agreement. An agreement is not a
wager if one party- may only win and cannot lose or if he may lose but cannot win, or if he can
neither win nor lose.
(e) No party should have a proprietary interest in the event. The stake must be the only interest
which the parties have in the agreement.

7. Special cases:
We now turn to certain special cases in order to examine as to whether they are wagers:
Commercial transactions: Agreements for sale and purchase of any commodity or share market
transactions, in which there is a genuine intention to ‘do legitimate business i. e., to give and
take delivery of goods or shares, are not wagering agreements. If there is no such genuine
intention and parties only want to gamble on the rise or fall of the market by paying or
receiving the differences in prices only, the transaction would be a wa-gering agreement and
therefore void. “In order to constitute a wagering contract, neither party should intend to
perform the contract itself, but only to pay the differences”
Lotteries: A lottery is a game of chance. Hence the lottery business is a wagering transaction.
Such a transaction is not only void but also illegal because 294-A of the Indian Penal Code
declares ‘conducting of lottery a punishable offence. If a lottery is authorized by the
Government, the only effect of such permission is that the persons conducting the lottery (i. e.,
the persons running the lottery and the buyer of lottery ticket) will not. be guilty of a criminal
offence, but the lottery remains a wager alright (Dorabji Tata vs Lance).
Crossword puzzles: Where prizes depend upon a chance, it is ‘a lottery and therefore a
wagering transaction. Thus a crossword puzzle, in which prizes depend upon correspondence of
the competitor’s solution with a previously prepared solution, is a wager. But if prizes depend
upon skill and intelligence, it is a valid transaction. Thus prize competitions which are games of
skill and in which an effort is made to select the best competitor e.g., picture puzzles, literary
competitions and athletic competi-tions are not wagers. Even in such competitions .the amount
of prize should not exceed Rs 1,000; otherwise they shall be wagers as per the provisions of the
Prize Competition Act, 1955.
Insurance contracts: Insurance contracts are valid contracts even though they provide for
payment of money by the insurer, on the happening of a future uncertain event. Such contracts
differ from wagering agreements mainly in three respects:
(a) The holder of an insurance policy must have an ‘insurable interest’ in the event upon which
the insurance money becomes payable. ‘Thus contracts of insurance are entered into to protect
an interest. In a wagering agreement there is no interest to protect and the parties bet
exclusively because they can thereby make some easy money.
(b) Contracts of insurance are based on scientific and actuarial calculation whereas wagering
agreements are a gamble without any scientific calculation of risks.

8. (c) Contracts of insurance are regarded as beneficial to the public, whereas wagering
agreements do not serve any useful purpose.
AGREEMENT BY WAY OF WAGER:
Wager is a specified uncertain event which is not in the control of either party.
Wager is void because it promotes gambling.
Exceptions:
1) Horse racing
2) Lottery

9. SECTION :
Sec. 52-553. Wagers and wagering contract void. All wagers, and all contracts and securities of
which the whole or any part of the consideration is money or other valuable thing won, laid or
bet, at any game, horse race, sport or pastime, and all contracts to repay any money knowingly
lent at the time and place of such game, race, sport or pastime, to any person so gaming,
betting or wagering, or to repay any money lent to any person who, at such time and place, so
pays, bets or wagers, shall be void, provided nothing in this section shall
(1) Affect the validity of any negotiable instrument held by any person who acquired the same
for value and in good faith without notice of illegality in the consideration,
(2) Apply to the sale of a raffle ticket pursuant to section 7-172, or
(3) Apply to any wager or contract otherwise authorized by law.
Literally the word ‘wager’ means ‘a bet’ something stated to be lost or won on the result of a
doubtful issue, and, therefore, wagering agreements are nothing but ordinary betting
agreements.
Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act talks about wagering agreements, which reads as
“agreements by way of wager are void”. The section does not define ‘wager.’ Section 30 states
that,
“Agreements by way of wager are void; and no suit shall be brought for recovering anything
alleged to be won on any wager, or entrusted to any person to abide the result of any game or
other uncertain event on which any wager is made.”
Exception in favor of certain prizes for horse racing –
“This section shall not be deemed to render unlawful a subscription or any contribution, or
agreement to subscribe or contribute, made or entered into for or toward any plate, prize or
sum of money, of the value or amount of five hundred rupees or upwards, to be awarded to the
winner or winners of any horse race.”
Section 294A of The Indian Penal Code not affected –

10. “Nothing in this section shall be deemed to legalize any transaction connected with horse
Racing, to which the provisions of S.294A of The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) apply.”
Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 declares wagering agreements as void. The section is
as follows:
I. Agreements by way of wager void- Agreements by way of wager are void; and no suit
shall be brought for recovering anything alleged to be won on any wager, or entrusted
to any person to abide by result of any game or other uncertain event on which any
wager is made.
II. Exception in favor of certain prizes for Horse racing—This section shall not be deemed
to render unlawful a subscription or contribution, or agreement to subscribe or
contribute, made or entered into for or toward any plate, prize or sum of money, of the
value or amount of five hundred rupees or upwards, to be awarded to the winner or
winners of any Horse race.
III. Section 294-A of the Indian Penal Code not affected—Nothing in this section shall be
deemed to legalize any transaction connected with horse racing, to which the provisions
of section 294-A of the Indian Penal Code apply.
IV. Section 30 only says that “agreements by way of wager are void”. The section does not
define ‘wager’. Sir WilliamAnson’s definition of ‘wager’ as a promise to give money or
money’s worth upon the determination or ascertainment of an uncertain event, brings
out the concept of wager declared void by section 30 of the contract act.
Essentials of Section30:
· Mutual chances of gain and loss
There must be two parties, or two sides, and mutual chances of gain and loss, i.e., one
party is to win and the other to lose upon the determination of the event. It is not a
wager where one party may win but cannot lose, or if may lose but cannot win, or if he
can neither win nor lose, ‘if one of the parties has the event in his own hands, the
transaction lacks an essential ingredient of wager.’ ‘It is of the essence of the wager that
each side should stand to win or lose according to the uncertain or unascertained event
in reference to which the chance or risk is taken.’

11. · Two parties
There must be two persons, either of whom is capable of winning or losing.
‘….you cannot have two parties or more than two sides to bet. You may have a multi
partite agreement to contribute to a sweepstake (which may be illegal as a lottery if the
winner is determined by skill), but you cannot have a multipartite agreement for a bet
unless the numerous parties are divided in to two sides, of which one wins or the others
loses, according to whether an uncertain event does not happen’.
· Uncertain Event
Uncertainty in the minds of the parties about the determination of the event in one way
or other is necessary. A wager generally contemplates a future event; but it may even
relate to an event which has already happened in the past, but the parties are not aware
of its result or the time of its happening.
The first thing essential to wager is that the performance of the bargain must depend
upon the determination of an uncertain event. A wager generally contemplates future
events; but it may even relate to an event which has already happened in the past, but it
may even relate to an event which has already happened in the past, but the parties are
not aware of its result or the time of its happening.
· No interest other than stake
Neither party should have any interest in the happening of the event other than the sum
or stake he will win or lose. To constitute a wager, the parties must contemplate the
determination of the uncertain event as the sole condition of their contract. The stake
must be the only interest which the parties have in the contract.
· Neither party to have control over the event
Lastly, neither party should have control over the happening of the event one way or
the other. “If one of the parties has the event in his own hands, the transaction lacks an
essential ingredient of a wager.”

12. CASE: PEOPLEVs. RAZE
[Crim. No. 4332. Second Dist., Div. Three. May 19, 1949.]
THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. FLOYD E. RAZE, Appellant.
COUNSEL
Max Solomon and John J. Bradley for Appellant.
Fred N. Howser, Attorney General, and Kent C. Rogers, Deputy Attorney General, for
Respondent.
OPINION
VALLEE, J.
Appellant was convicted of a violation of Penal Code, section 337a, subdivision 3, which
provides that every person who, whether for gain, hire, reward, or gratuitously, or otherwise,
receives, holds, or forwards, or purports or pretends to receive, hold, or forward, in any manner
whatsoever, any money, or consideration of value, or the equivalent thereof, bet or wagered,
or to be bet or wagered, or offered for the purpose of being bet or wagered, upon the result, or
purported result, of any contest, or purported contest, of skill, speed or power of endurance
between horses is guilty of a public offense. He appeals from the judgment and from the
sentence imposed. [1] As no appeal lies from the sentence, that appeal is dismissed. (People v.
Tallman, 27 Cal.2d 209, 215 [163 P.2d 857].)
On August 10, 1948, a police officer in civilian clothes entered the premises at 2800 North
Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, which is a poolroom and bar. The following conversation occurred
between the officer and appellant: Officer: "You were lucky not to have been taken with Bill."
Appellant: "Yes, those dumb cops missed the best ones, Roy and I. I hid a bunch of markers
under my shirt." Officer: "Well, give me two to win and two to show on 'Bill Bartlem' in the 8th
at Del Mar." Appellant: "Okay." Appellant immediately went to the phone and the officer heard
him phone that bet in. Appellant then said to the officer: "I know you had 'Mine', a winner, in
the 5th, because I heard you give it to Roy. So you have money coming. And I'll put this bet
under cash sales and you can collect tomorrow from Roy. Okay?" Officer: "Okay."
The officer went to the premises on August 11, 1948, at 3:30 p.m. and saw appellant. He
testified: "This defendant was in this poolroom shortly after 3:30, a few minutes after, when I
gave the first defendant, Mr. Cardno, a $2.00 show bet on 'Lady Lassitor' in the 4th at Del Mar.
And defendant Cardno [91 Cal.App.2d 920] gave me change from the $5.00 marked bill, which I
had given the defendant. And a few minutes after that, approximately a short time, well,

13. Officer Colbern and two other officers entered. Q. You did not make any bet with the defendant
on the 11th, is that right? A. No. I didn't."
On cross-examination the officer testified:
"Q.] In other words, it has been your testimony you made wagers with all three of these men?
A.] Yes.
Q.] Were the three of them ever present at one time at any of your visits there?
A.] I believe on the first day, the 8th, at about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon this defendant just
came to work, and the first defendant, Mr. Cardno, was just leaving work, and the manager,
Roy, were all three there on that one time. On most of the occasions there were just two of
them there.
Q.] On most occasions two of them were there together?
A.] Later bets, this defendant was there by himself"; that on the occasions he was on the
premises there were other people there, approximately 12, either playing pool or sitting at the
bar;
"Q.] Did you, besides this one man you described in one of the accidents when you were there,
hear anybody ask for a wager on a horse? Did you hear anybody else make a wager?
A.] On the 9th there was a man seated beside me, made a wager, but I didn't hear the horse he
asked for.
Q.] In other words, on all those occasions you were there you never did see, with the exception
of this one person, you never did see anybody make a bet in there, did you?
A.] I didn't hear a specific horse named. I saw money pass.
Q.] Between whom did you see money pass?
A.] Between a very small individual who had a horse,--they evidently phoned in the wrong
horse,--he had a $5.00 win bet on a horse that paid thirty-seven fifty, and he wasn't paid off
because they had phoned in a different horse. And there was quite an uproar about it. That was
on the 9th. Shortly before this Mr. Cardno was arrested.
Q.] However, you did not see any activity take place there other than what you have indicated,
these two people, you did not see any wagers taken there, did you, besides yours?
A.] I saw money pass hands. ...

14. Q.] Were your wagers, these wagers you were talking about, ever written down on anything?
A.] No. Immediately after a wager was made, either one of the three defendants went to the
phone and phoned it in. I never saw anything written down. ...
Q.] Officer, on these occasions when you saw money exchange hands, did you ever see the
telephone used?
A.] Yes, sir. Immediately after some unknown man in there would hand one of the defendants
bills, this person who took the money would [91 Cal.App.2d 921] immediately go to the phone
and I didn't hear the conversation, so I can't say.
Q.] Approximately how many times did you see that occur?
A.] The first defendant, Mr. Cardno, I saw him go at least six times.
Q.] Let us just confine it to this defendant.
A.] This defendant, I saw him go three on the date I made my wager with him."
It was stipulated that a horse named "Bill Bartlem" was running at some track in the United
States on August 10, 1948, and that the expression "$2.00 to win and $2.00 to show" indicated
a wager.
The case was tried on the transcript of the preliminary. Appellant did not take the stand. The
foregoing constitutes all of the evidence. Appellant did not object to the reception of any
evidence.
[1]Appellant claims that –
(1) The corpus delicti must be proved by evidence other than the extrajudicial declarations of
appellant, and
(2) there is no evidence of the corpus delicti other than the extrajudicial statements of
appellant.
[2] Proof of the corpus delicti (that the specific offense charged has actually been committed by
somebody) should be made prior to the presentation of evidence of admissions or confessions.
The pronouncement found in some of the cases that the corpus delicti cannot be established by
the extrajudicial statements and declarations of the accused is not an accurate statement of the
rule. The rule is limited to admissions and confessions. (8 Cal.Jur. § 248, p. 167.) Where the gist
or essence of the offense charged consists of statements or declarations of the accused,--that

15. is, where statements or declarations of the accused are essential in order to establish that the
specific offense charged was committed,--such statements and declarations are admissible as
proof of the corpus delicti. There are many criminal offenses predicated upon fraud, such as
false pretenses by fraudulent representations (now called theft in this state, Pen. Code, § 484)
in which the corpus delicti obviously cannot be established without proof of statements or
declarations of the accused.
[3] Proof of the corpus delicti in the case at bar was established upon evidence that somebody
"gratuitously, or otherwise" received, or purported or pretended to receive or hold, "in any
manner whatsoever," any money or consideration of value or the equivalent thereof to be bet
or wagered, or offered for the purpose of being bet or wagered, upon the result or purported
result of a horse race. The evidence as to what occurred [91 Cal.App.2d 922] on August 10,
1948, established not only the corpus delicti but also appellant's connection with the offense.
Appellant accepted a wager of $2.00 to win and $2.00 to show on "Bill Bartlem" a horse running
in the 8th race at Del Mar on August 10, 1948. That he did not receive cash is of no
consequence. He pretended and purported to receive the equivalent of money, a profit which
the officer had made on another race which was held by his associate who was taking wagers
on the same premises. The court was warranted in inferring that appellant and his two
associates were acting in concert operating a bookmaking establishment and that money held
by appellant's associate was held by appellant. Statements made by appellant to the officer
were admissible as proof of the corpus delicti. The corpus delicti was established. The
conviction of appellant was not a miscarriage of justice.
Judgment affirmed.

16. CASE: GHERULAL PARAKH vs. MAHADEODAS MAIYA AND ORS. (29 January 2013)
FACTS:
Plaintiff and defendant entered into Partnership agreement with object of entering into
wagering transactions with obligation to bear equal loss or profit arising out of such
partnership. When plaintiff asked for reimbursement of half of money paid by him to discharge
losses of partnership, defendant alleged that the agreement made between them was illegal
and unenforceable on account of S.23
ISSUE:
Whether the alleged Partnership agreement was either forbidden by law, or opposed to public
policy or immoral so as to render it void abolition?
HELD:
(i) Void agreements cannot be equated with illegal agreements. The law may actually forbid an
agreement to be made or it may merely refuse to enforce an agreement. In former case, it is
illegal in latter it is merely void, in as much as all illegal agreements are void but not all void
agreements are illegal or forbidden by law.
S.30 of ICA is based on provisions of Gaming Act, 1845 in England which rendered both primary
agreements of wagering and any substituted agreement for recovery of money alleged to be
won on any wager as void but, secondary agreements in respect thereof enforceable. Therefore
any wagering agreement though is void and unenforceable but is not forbidden by law,
therefore the object of any collateral agreement upon wagering isn’t unlawful within the ambit
of S.23 of ICA, hence is valid and subsisting between the parties.
In present case, parties had no interest to take delivery of the goods rather were only dealing
with difference in prices such that they mutually intended the transaction to be of the nature of
wager. Though wagers are void u/s 30 of ICA but cannot be considered as forbidden by law u/s
23 for a person entering into wagering transactions does no legal wrong but only fails to get
protection of law in enforcing those transactions. Hence any collateral agreement with the
object of wagering cannot be declared to be void due to ‘object forbidden by law’ u/s 23, and is
subsisting between the parties.
(ii) Any agreement which tends to be injurious to/against interest or conscience of public at
large is said to be opposed to public policy. It is a branch of common law and unless a particular
principle of public policy is recognized by that law, Courts cannot invent a new head of public
policy. The ordinary function of Court is to rely on the well settled heads of public policy and to
apply them to varying situations unless harm to public interest is substantially incontestable.

17. The policy of law in India is to sustain the legality of wagers, as in common law, though
rendering them void and unenforceable. Not even in a single case, SC said, had Courts in India
pr in England struck down any wagering contract as ‘opposed to public policy’. Indeed some of
the gambling transactions are a perennial source of income to the state. Hence, it cannot be
said that wagering is opposed to public policy and therefore, partnership agreement formed
with object of wagering was not unlawful for its object being opposed to public policy u/s 23.
SC further remarked, “Even if it is permissible for Courts to evolve a new head of public policy
under extraordinary circumstances giving rise to incontestable harm to society, wager isn’t one
of such instance of exceptional gravity for it has been tolerated by public and state alike.”
(iii) Immorality u/s 23 should be confined to cases of sexual immorality like agreements for
concubinage, sale or hire of things to be used in a brothel, marriage for consideration;
agreements facilitating divorce, etc. are all immoral in nature. This limitation on meaning of
word ‘immoral’ as in S.23 is because of reasons: Firstly, its juxtaposition with equally wide
concept of ‘public policy’ in S.23 highlights legislative intent to give it a narrow meaning
otherwise it will lead to overlapping of two concepts; secondly, the phrase “Courts regard it as
immoral” as in S.23 highlights immorality is also a branch of common law and must be confined
to principles recognized and settled by Courts; Thirdly, case law in England and in India confines
its operation to sexual immorality.
Since present case revolves around wagering which cannot be regarded as sexually immoral,
hence, it is not under realm of immorality as given u/s 23 of ICA.
Therefore partnership agreement formed with the object of entering into wagering
transactions is enforceable, valid and subsisting for its object of wagering isn’t unlawful u/s 23
because it is neither forbidden by law, nor opposed to public policy, and nor immoral.

18. Agreements Collateral to Wagering Agreements:
Contract collateral to a wagering agreement is not necessarily unenforceable.
Section 30 of the ContractAct is based upon the provisions of S. 18 of the
(English) Gaming Act 1845, and though a wager is void and unenforceable, it is not
forbidden by law. Therefore the object of a collateral agreement is not unlawful
under s 23 of the contract act. But it is otherwiseunder the (English) Gaming acts
of 1845 and 1892, theacts being wider and more comprehensivein phraseology,
because they expressly render void even collateral transactions. As a result,
though an agreement by way of wager is void, contract collateral to it or in
respect of a wagering agreement is not void except in Bombay state. There is
nothing illegal in the strict sensein making bets. They are merely void and there
would be no illegality in paying them or giving a cheque, but payment cannot be
compelled. But an arbitration clausein a wagering contractis a part of the
contract and not collateral to it and cannot therefore be enforced.
A collateral agreement is not unlawfulunder s 23 of the contractact.
Apart from Bombay enactment, there is no statute declaring void agreements
collateral to wagering contract. Nor is there anything in the presentsection to
render such agreements void. The policy of law in India has been to sustain the
legality of wagers and not to hit at collateral contracts. Ithas accordingly been
held that a broker or an agent may successfully maintain a suit against his
principal to recover his brokerage, commission, or the losses sustained by him,
even though contracts in respectof which the claim is made are contracts by way
of wager.
The Supreme Courthas held that if agreement collateral to another or of aid in
facilitating the carrying outof the object of the other agreement, which though
void, is not in itself prohibited within the meaning of s 23 of the contract act, may
be enforced as collateral agreement. If on the other hand it is part of a
mechanismto defeat what the law has actually prohibited, courts will not
countenance a claim based upon the agreement because it will be tainted with an
illegality of the object soughtto be achieved, which is hit by s 23 of the contract
act. An agreement cannot be said to be forbidden or unlawfulmerely because it

19. results in a void contract. A void agreement when coupled with other facts may
become part of a transaction which creates legal rights but this is not so if the
object is prohibited.
In England also, agreements collateral to wagering contracts werenot void before
the enactment of the gaming act 1892. Thus in Read v Anderson a betting agent,
at the request of the defendant, made bets in his own name on behalf of the
defendant. After the bets were made and lost, the defendant revoked the
authority to pay conferred upon the betting agent. Notwithstanding the
revocation, the agent paid the bets, and sued the defendant having empowered
the agent to bet in his name, the authority was irrevocable, and that the agent
was entitled to judgment. The statute of 1892, passed in consequenceof this
decision, is almost to the same effect as the Bombay act. It is interesting to note
that the statute was not passed until 27 years after the Bombay act. Itis hoped
that in future, the revision of the contract act will corporate provisions of the
Bombay act in the presentsection, so as to render the law uniformon this subject
in the whole of India.

20. CONCLUSION :
As section 30 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 reads about agreements by way of wager, void.
Further The Contract Act does not define what constitutes a wager or a wagering agreement. It
only mentions that such agreements will be void and unenforceable and no action can lie to
either recover anything that is due under a wager or for performance of a contract that is in the
nature of a wager. A wager is in the nature of a contingent contract but is prevented from being
enforceable by Section 30.

21. BIBILOGRAPHY
I have completed this project with the reference of following online resources :
www.lawjustice.com
www.Indiancaselaws.wordpress.com
www.Indiancaselaws.org
www.legalserviceindia.com
elearning.sol.du.ac.in