Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

prof s c pratihar ( urologist &legal studies)     15 September 2008

forbidden by law

dear sir,

            wager is not forbidden by law.is it void or unenforceable?



Learning

 4 Replies

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     16 September 2008

Dear Dr,


Section 30 of the Indian Contract act clearly says that agreement by way of wager is void. But again it is not absolutely illegal. See Badridas Kothari Vs meghraj kothari AIR 1967 Cal 25. Gulam Mustaffakham Vs Padamsi AIR 1923 Nagpur 48. The principal of this section has been properly discussed in the classic case of Carlill vs carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1892) 2 QB 484.

Shree. ( Advocate.)     16 September 2008

Dear Sir,


Section 30 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872

  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 favour 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. Section 294A of the Indian Penal Code not affected. Section 294A 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 294A of the Indian Penal Code apply.


 

prof s c pratihar ( urologist &legal studies)     17 September 2008

grateful to mr assumi and mr shree for such for such beautiful explanation and citation

rahul govind jaisinghani (student)     02 December 2008

I JUST READ UR POSTS REGARDING CARLILL V/S CARBOLIC


WELL GENTLE MAN LEMME GIVE U A INFO THT ITS NT A WAGER


 


AS WE AL KNW DER R A FEW essentialz of a wager


ie


event mus b uncertain


riskz mus b equal 4 both partiez


regarding winning or loosing


n finally


d parties shld have no oder intrests in occurence of event excpt to tht of d stake


here in dis case


d plantiff had a chance of winning i.e gaining as well as loosing


bt in case of defendent


there were no chances of ny gain therefore d  contract cannot b considered as wager


i hope m right


if ny arguments u cld surely cum up n talk to me


here r my idz


trustdevil@gmail.com


zac_rahul@yahoo.com


 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register