This article indicates the wagering agreement or the betting contract under the Enterprise Contract Act. It also discusses the importance of the betting agreement, characteristics, etc. The term “the fact that a contract refers to gambling”  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. In the case of Narayana Ayyangar v. Vallachami Ambalam, the Chit Fund cannot be a betting agreement, in this case was detained. As in the Chit-Fonds, there is a chance of rain, but there is no chance of losing, since the actual amount of the subscription is refunded. There is therefore no loss and the mutual chance of losing or winning is absent. Therefore, chit Fund is not a betting agreement. 6. A betting agreement is only a game of chance, while an insurance contract is based on the scientific and actuarial calculation of risks. 2. The betting agreement is a nullity agreement, while the insurance contract is a valid one.
Illustration A teacher and a student agree that if the student completes his or her judge`s exam, the teacher pays 10,000 points to the student and if he or she is unable to do so, the student will pay 5,000 points to the teacher. Such an agreement is a betting agreement. · None of the parties that have control of the event Lately, no party should have control of what happened in any way. “If one of the parties has the event in hand, the transaction is not an integral part of a bet.” [ix] Effects of the bet agreementA betting agreement is not valid from the initio, and s.65 does not apply. [x] Money paid directly by a third party to a bet winner cannot be recovered by the loser. [xi] Even if a loser makes a new promise to pay his losses, if he is not posted, the promise cannot be kept; but if he makes a cheque to fulfill his responsibility, the cheque must not be tainted with illegality, because the winner has promised not to locate it. The cheques cannot be enforceable by the original beneficiary, but executed by a third party who holds the cheque, even if he was aware of the facts that led to the handing over of the cheque. It was established by the Supreme Court of Gherulal Parekh v.Mahadeo Das [xii] that a bet is certainly innocuous and unenforceable, but is not prohibited by law. Therefore, the guarantee of revenue under Section 23 of the Contracts Act is not illegal and transaction guarantees are therefore applicable for the main transaction. Wager Section Laws now enforces the entire betting law in India, supplemented by the State of Bombay by law to avoid betting (amendments) Law 1865, which amended the law to avoid betting in 1848. Before the 1848 Act, the Betting Act in British India was the common law in England. Under this law, a bet could be maintained if it was not contrary to the interests or feelings of third parties, did not result in indecent evidence and was not contrary to public policy.[xiii] The nature of the game is inherently malicious and harmful. [xiv] Gambling activities, which have been condemned in India since antiquity, appear to have been discouraged in England, Scotland, the United States of America and Australia and have been viewed as disadvantages. The Hindu gambling law was not included in contract law in India. [xv] Gambling is neither a trade nor a trade, but an additional ad hoc and is therefore not protected under Article 19, paragraph 1, or Article 301. [xvi] Comparison with English lawA many countries have laws that invalidate gambling or betting contracts.