A cricket match is to start in Hyderabad, between India and South Africa. If India wins the match, A agrees to pay 500 B Rs, while if South Africa wins the match, B agrees to pay 500 ru. A. It`s a betting deal. In that case. Each game has a chance to win or lose. Here, the gain of one part will be the loss of the other and vice versa. Bet, the dictionary meaning of the word is “something risks on an uncertain event” and betting is a type of game that involves bets on the outcome of an external event or facts, such as a sporting event or a piece of little things. The bet on money or something Value (called “betting”) on an event with an uncertain outcome, with the main intention to earn money or material goods. The bet therefore requires three elements: consideration (an amount in service), risk (luck) and price. The result of the bet is often immediate, such as a single roll of dice, a rotation of a roulette wheel, or a horse that crosses the finish line, but the longer period are also common, so bets on the result of a future sporting competition or even an entire sporting season.
A and B enter into an agreement that if A leaves his job, B 500 Rs. to A and A 500 Rs. to B, if he does not resign. Here, A controls the event. Therefore, no bet. An agreement with the Race Course Authority, which was authorized to organize the racetrack competition to contribute up to 600 people to the money that was to be paid to the winner of the horse race that was to take place on any given day. This is not a gamble. 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. Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 Act directly states that the betting agreements are void and that the parties to the agreement cannot appeal for the recovery of an arbitration award in respect of the agreement. But the thing is, pari agreement is not illegal, but they are not valid, which means they can be done but are not enforceable in court. The Supreme Court held that where an agreement has the effect of providing a guarantee for another or assistance intended to facilitate the implementation of the purpose of the other convention, which is in itself non-prohibited within the meaning of S 23 of the Contracts Act, it may be imposed as a security agreement. On the other hand, if it is part of a mechanism to defeat what the law has effectively prohibited, the courts will not accept a claim based on the agreement, because it is tainted by an illegality of the purpose sought by S 23 of the Contracts Act. An agreement cannot be characterized as prohibited or illegal simply because it gives rise to a nullity contract. an unducded agreement, if it is related to other facts, may be part of a transaction that creates legal rights, but this is not the case if the object is prohibited or mala in it.
In England, too, betting contract agreements were not invalidated until the Gambling Act was passed in 1892.