Section 30 clarifies that all agreements entered into in connection with the bet must be declared non-existent and that, therefore, any action for recovery of the amount won during the bet or against the other person that requires them to respect the results must not be maintained and brought to justice. But what a betting contract really is and on the basis of which the contract is cancelled is not defined anywhere in the Contracts Act. Hawkins J in Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. recognized the need to first form the basis of betting contracts and to clarify the term „betting” and described the betting contract as an agreement between the parties to pay each other a certain amount of money, depending on the appearance or absence of an uncertain future agreement. From early times, when there were cases in British India, the law that concerned betting was the Common Law in England, but then the Wagers Avoiding Act came into force in 1848. Previously, it was thought that any act of gambling could be maintained if it did not violate the personal feelings of the third person with evidence and was contrary to public order. When we discuss the concept of gambling and betting, we know that this kind of activity has existed in our country since the good old days, which have not been accepted and boycotted in England. This type of activity has not been explicitly mentioned in the Indian Contracts Act or Hindu law in general, and therefore these types of activities are considered illegal and are not protected under our Indian Constitution, in accordance with Article 19 or Article 301. 3.
In a betting contract, neither party has an interest in an event taking place or not happening. But in an insurance contract, both parties are interested in the cause. 65 does not apply to it. [x] Money paid directly by a third party to a winner of a bet cannot be recovered by the loser. [xi] Even if a loser makes a new promise to pay for his losses if he is not sent, the promise cannot be kept; However, if he makes a cheque for the performance of his responsibility, the cheque must not be tainted with illegality because the winner has promised not to publish the name. Cheques are not enforceable by the original beneficiary, but may be executed by a third cheque holder, even if he or she was aware of the facts that led to the cheque being awarded. .