In Badridas Kothari V. Meghraj Kothari, two people entered into equity betting transactions and one went into debt with others. A debt voucher was executed to pay this debt. The statement was found to be unenforceable. In other words, a new promise to pay money won in a bet is also not valid. While a betting contract cannot be enforced, a deposit made by one player with the other as a guarantee of compliance with the terms of the betting contract cannot be recovered unless the amount was actually used for the purpose for which it was deposited.  After the proclamation of the Indian Constitution and its coming into force on January 26, 1950, gambling issues were divided. Betting and gambling are listed in entry 34 of the list of states (i.e. list II of the seventh game plan). This means that only the national legislator has the power to legislate on betting and gambling. Lotteries are mentioned in entry 40, list 1 of the Union list, which means that the Indian Parliament is the appropriate body to legislate on lotteries. In addition, in accordance with entry 62 of the national list, the State legislature has the power to enact laws on the taxation of betting and gambling.
. the Hundis represented a betting contract. The Trial Court of Appeal initially waived the question of whether the hundis to resolve one. Betting contract and decided the case on the ground that the different branches of the applicant`s company in different cities are separate entities and that, even if the contracts were betting contracts. Transactions in the sense that it was never intended that the actual delivery of goods would take place, but that the betting contract did not exist between the claimant or the other branches of his company. And even in the case of stock markets, the bet on the company`s share is not based on a simple coincidence, but on a thorough analysis of the shares of different companies, and the study on the model suggests which shares of the companies will increase significantly, and this analysis is a capability. And section 30 remains silent on this. And this shows that Section 30 has a limited scope, perhaps it was due to the time the law was drafted, but now the bet has become a huge concept and therefore the contract law needs to improve the scope of its betting agreement. . .