Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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