Wagering Agreement Under Indian Contract Act

4. Betting contracts are conditional contracts, while insurance contracts are compensation contracts, with the exception of life insurance contracts, which are quota contracts. A betting contract is void from the initio, and Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act has no application. Payment made directly by a third party to a winner of a betting agreement cannot be recovered by the loser. In Gherulal Parekh v. Mahadeo Das,[3] the Supreme Court found that a gamble was null andible. It is illegal and is not prohibited by law. Therefore, the guarantee of turnover is authorized by Article 23 of the Contracts Act and, therefore, the guarantee of transactions is valid and enforceable for the main transaction. Yes, betting contracts are different from insurance contracts. Although they are both dependent on an uncertain event in the future, the latter is intended to compensate the contract for the damage suffered.

While in betting contracts, the parties have only interest in the event, in the insurance contracts party has insurable interest and the element of risk is incorporated into the agreement. Horse Racing – Section 30 of the Indian Contracts Act, provides that the agreement on the basis of victory or loss of the horse is not a zero agreement. The section does not make a subscription or contribution or agree to subscribe or sign a sign, prize or sum of money amounting to five hundred rupees or up for the winner of horse races. The reason why horses are excluded from the list is because horse racing does not depend only on chance or happiness, but it depends more on the previous preparation of the horse, which includes practices, food, maintenance. Horse racing is based more on horse craftsmanness than happiness. The term “the fact that a contract refers to gambling” [68] is broad enough to cover not only the gambling contract itself, but also related transactions, which refer to agency agreements concerning gambling, partnerships, stakeholders, securities and gambling. It was found that the agreement could not be considered one of the legal bets. In this case, there was neither side to lose after the result of the wrestling match. “The operation does not come from the pocket of the parties, but had to be paid from the money from the door made available by the public.” [17] The bottom line of a betting agreement is that neither party should have any interest other than the amount it will earn or lose.

Parties to a betting contract focus primarily on the profit or loss they earn. For a betting agreement, it is essential that each party among it can win or lose, whether it wins or loses, depending on the question of the event, and therefore remains uncertain until this issue is known. If one of the parties can win but cannot lose, it is not a betting agreement.