WAGERING CONTRACT: A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN INDIAN AND ENGLISH LAW

WAGERING CONTRACT: A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN INDIAN AND ENGLISH LAW

AUTHOR: DEVANSH BHARGAVA,
4TH YEAR, BBA LL.B (HONS),
COLLEGE OF LEGAL STUDIES, UNIVERISTY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES, DEHRADUN.

    ABSTRACT

    In Indian culture, wagering has been seen many a times from the ancient times, even when there were no dice; Indian used the nuts of the bhibhakti tree. If we go back in the Mahabharata times, one of the oldest mythologies of India, where skills of the opponents were tested not by a war, but through game and board.  According to section 30 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, “Agreement by way of wager are void; and no suit shall be brought for recovering anything alleged to be won for any wager, or entrusted to any person to abide by the result of any game or other uncertain event on which  any wager is made. The section does not define “wager” but represents the whole law of wagering contract now in forced in India.

    The nature of gambling is inherently vicious and pernicious.  Gambling activities which have been condemned in India from ancient appear to have been equally discouraged and looked upon with disfavour in Scotland, the United States of America and Australia. Gambling is now legalised under English law subject to the provisions of the Gambling Act, 2005 in force in England, Wales and Scotland.


    The paper aims to study secondary sources for research. The co- authors want to have a deep comparative study between the laws relating to wagering proceeding in India and status of laws proceeding under English Law. The paper will cover the different aspects of wagering like its features, enforceability, its exceptions while giving author’s own point of view; while comparing it with the Gambling Act, 2005.
    Key words: Mythologies, Provisions, Inherently, Pernicious, Gambling, Wagering, Enforceability.

    1. Introduction


    According to section 30[1], “Agreement by way of wager are void; and no suit shall be brought for recovering anything alleged to be won for any wager, or entrusted to any person to abide by the result of any game or other uncertain event on which  any wager is made.  This section represents the whole law of wagering contract now in forced in India, supplemented in Bombay State by the Act for Avoiding Wagers (Amendments) Act, 1865 which amended the Act for Avoiding Wager, 1848. Before the Act of 1848, the law relating to wagers in force in British India was the Commo
    n Law of England. By that law an action might be maintained on a wager, if it was not against the interest of feelings of third persons, did not lead to indecent evidence, and was not contrary to public policy.[2] The nature of gambling is inherently vicious and pernicious.[3]
     Gambling activities which have been condemned in India from ancient appear to have been equally discouraged and looked upon with disfavour in Scotland, the United States of America and Australia.[4] Gambling is now legalised in English law subject to the provisions of the Gambling Act, 2005 in force in England, Wales and Scotland. The Hindu Law relating to gambling has not been introduced in the law of contract in India.[5] Gambling is not trade and commerce, but res extra commercium and therefore is not protected within Art. 19(1) or Art.301.[6] Under the constitution of India, the state legislatures have been entrusted with power to frame state specific laws on ‘Betting and Gambling’.[7] The Public Gambling Act, 1867, is the central enactment on the subject, which has been adopted by the certain states of India. The other states in India have enacted their own legislation to regulate gambling activities within its territory (Gambling Legislations).  The gambling legislations regulate casinos in India. The Gambling Legislations of Goa, Daman & Diu[8]and Sikkim[9] allow gambling to a limited extent, under a license, in five star hostels. In Goa, the law also permits casinos on board an offshore vessel.
    Section 30 only says that “agreement by way of wager is void”. The section does not define “wager”. SUBBA RAO J in a case[10] said: Sir William Anson’ s definition of “wager” As a promise to give money or money’s worth upon the determination or ascertainment of an uncertain event, brings out the concept of wager declared void by section 30 of the contract act.   There is no technical objection of the validity of a wagering contract.[11] It is an agreement by mutual promises, each of them conditional on the happening or not happening of an unknown event. So far as that goes, promises of this form will support each other as well as any other reciprocal promises.
    In Alamai v. Positive Government Security Life Assurance Co.[12]  A case of life insurance, the judge said “ what is the meaning of the phrase  ‘agreements by the way of wager’ in Section 30 of the Contract Act ?” In of the case[13], the judge said that the essence of gaming and wagering was the party to win and the other was to lose upon a future event, which at the time of the contract of an uncertain nature; but he also pointed out that there were some transaction in which the parties might lose and gain according to the happening of a event which did not fall within the phrase such transactions, of course, are common enough including the majority of forward purchase and sales. If any agreement does not involve loss to either of the party, it is not a wager.

    2.Features of Wagering Agreement


    A wagering contract is one by which two persons professing to hold opposite views touching the issue of a future certain event, mutually agree that, dependent on the detrimentation of that event, one shall pay or handover to him, a sum of money or other stake; neither of the contracting parties having any other interest in that contract than the sum or stake he will so even win or lose, there being no other real consideration for the making of such contract by either of the parties. It is essential to a wagering contract that each party may under it either win or lose, whether he will win or lose being dependant on the issue of the event, and therefore, remaining uncertain until that issue is known. If either of the parties may win but cannot lose, it is not a wagering contract. This statement has the merit of bringing out all the essential features that make a transaction a wager.

    2.1 Mutual Chance of Gain and Loss


    The first essential feature is that there must be two parties, or two sides, and mutual chance of gain and lose,[14] i.e., one party is to win and the other to lose upon the determination of the event. It is not a wager where one party may win but cannot lose, or if he may lose but cannot win, or if he can neither win nor lose. If one of the parties has the event in his own hands, the transaction lacks an essential ingredient of wager.[15] It is of the essence of a wager that each side should stand to win or lose according to the ascertained or uncertain event in reference to which the chance or risk is taken.[16]In one of the case two wrestlers agreed to play a wrestling match on condition that the party failing to appear on the day fixed was to forfeit Rs. 500 to the opposite party and, the winner was to receive Rs. 1125 out of the gate money. The defendant failed to appear in the ring and the plaintiff sued him for Rs. 500. It was held that the agreement could not be looked upon as one of the wagering in law. In the present case neither side stood to lose according to the result of the wrestling match. “The stakes does not come out of the pocket of the parties, but had to be paid from the gate money provided by the public.”[17] A chit fund does not come within the scope of “wager”. It is no doubt true that some chance gain may come to some of the members, but none of them stands to lose his money, for his periodical deposits are refunded to him at the end of the scheme.[18] Madras High Court in a case[19] said that “It is true that in most chit fund transactions, no subscriber looses the money he had contributed; and so long as getting back the actual amount of subscription is assured, the interval of time, however long it may be, is immaterial.” The transaction being valid, a member was allowed to recover his subscription when the organisers refused to run the scheme upto the promised schedule.

    2.2 There Should Be Two Parties


    The second most essential feature of wagering contract is that there must be two persons, either of whom is capable of winning or losing

     2.3 Uncertain Event


    The third most essential feature of wagering contract is that the event may be uncertain, but need not to be future event. Parties may wager about the qualities or attributes of existing things, or the result of events already occurred, they both do not know about these things. The subject of the wager is then the accuracy of each person’s judgments and not the determination of the event.[20]

     2.4 No Interest Other Than The Stake


    To constitute a wager, the parties must contemplate the determination of the uncertain event as the sole condition of their contract. The stake must be the only interest which the parties have in the contract.[21]One may thus distinguish a genuine wager from a conditional promise or a guarantee.[22] Neither party must have any interest in the contract other than the sum which he will win or lose.[23] The transaction must ‘wholly depend on the risk in contemplation’ and neither must look to anything but the payment of money on the determination of uncertainty.[24] This is what distinguishes a contract of insurance from a wager. Every contract of insurance requires for its validity the existence of insurable interest. An insurance affected without insurable interest is no more than a wagering agreement and, therefore, void.[25] “Insurable interest” means the risk of loss to which the assured likely to be exposed by the happening of the event assured against. In a wager, on the other hand, neither party is running any risk of loss except that which is created by the agreement itself.[26] Whether an agreement is of a wagering nature depends upon the substance and not the words of the agreement.[27] The real object of the parties must be discovered.

    3.Suit for Recovery- When Lies and When Does not


    While a wagering contract cannot be enforced, a deposit made by one gambler with the other as security for observance of the terms of the wagering contract cannot be recovered, unless the amount has in fact been appropriated for the purpose for which it was deposited.[28] A claim for loss in consequence of a wagering contract is not legally enforceable, and if such contract be by one person with another, who is a partner of a firm and the contract is as between principle and principle, such a person cannot recoup the loss by filing the suit against the other partner of the firm.[29] Where the contract forming the basis of the suit is void being a wagering one, the court is competent to dismiss the suit in spite of a confession of an event on the part of the defendant.[30] Where the parties have agreed that the performance of their respective promises is to be simultaneous, one party cannot sue the other for damages for breach of contract unless he proves that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract at the appropriate time.[31]  A suit lies for recovery of money deposited by the party to a wagering contract as security for performance of his part of the contract. The direct prohibition contained in this section does not cover such a claim.[32]

    Whereas the suit for recovery lies in a case where a person bets on a horse for himself and on behalf of another, and the horse having gone receive the winning for himself as well as for another, suit for recovery of money for this share is maintainable.[33] The loser of the bet is entitled to recover his deposit form the stake-holder if he demands it from the latter before he pays over to the winner, but he has no right to recover the money from the winner if it is paid by stake holders to the winner in spite of plaintiff’s protest.[34] The forbearance of plaintiff to sue coupled with his forbearance to declare the defendant defaulter constitute good consideration for a fresh agreement, although the original contract had been in the nature of a wagering transaction and the plaintiff is entitled to recover on the fresh agreement.[35] This section does not bar suit by the principle against an agent or trustee in respect of prize money on a wagering contract on behalf of his principle.[36] Where a broker acts on the behalf of his customer and the customer gambles, the customer cannot set up a plea of gaming and wagering against the broker’s claim.[37]
    Lottery

    Under the constitution of India, the central legislations has the power to enact laws with respect to lotteries.[38] Lotteries have been expressly excluded from the purview of the Gambling Legislations and are governed by the central law- Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 under which the lottery (Regulations) Rules 2010 (“Central Lottery Laws”) and state specific rules have been framed (“Lottery Laws”).
    A cross word puzzle wherein prizes are awarded to person whose solution corresponds closely to the set solution of the editor is a lottery because the prize did not depend upon the best solution of a competitor but upon the chance of his solution corresponding closely to set solution.[39] But if a prize is awarded to the best solution and is not dependent upon an exercise of a substantial degree of skill.[40] A Kuri chit fund has been held to be a lottery. A sweepstake has been held to be a lottery.[41] A contract to purchase a lottery authorized by the government is null and void as it is a contract by the way of a wager.[42]
    The law is however, different in the State of Maharashtra, in that state, contracts collateral to in respect of wagering transactions are prevented from supporting a suit by the special provisions of Bombay Act III of 1865, Section 1 and 2 of the Act run as follows:-

    Section 1: “All contracts, whether by speaking, writing or otherwise knowlingly made, to furthur oor assist the entering into, effecting or carrying out agreements by of gaming or wagering, and all contracts by a security or guarantee for the performance of such  agreement or contracts, shall be null and viod; and no suit shall be allowed in any Court of Justice for recovering any sum of money paid or payable in respect of any such  contract or contracts or any such agreement or agreements as aforesaid.”  
    Section 2:  “No suit shall be allowed in any court of Justice for recovering any commission, brokerage free or reward in respect of the knowingly effecting or carrying out or of the knowledge aiding in effecting or in carrying out or otherwise claimed or claimable in respect of any such agreements by way of gaming or wagering or any such contracts as aforesaid, whether the plaintiff in such suit or be not a party to such last mentioned agreement or contract, or for recovering any sum of money knowingly paid or payable on account of any persons by way of commission, brokerage fee or reward in respect of any such agreement by way of gaming or wagering or contract as aforesaid. “  

    But in order to make the sections of the Bombay Act applicable it must be shown that the transaction in respect of which the brokerage, commission or losses are claimed must amount to  a wagering agreement, and it is no answer to a  suit by the broker in respect of such a claim against his principle that, so  far as the defendant was concerned,  he entered into the contract as wagering transaction with the intention of paying the differences only and that the plaintiff must have known the inability of the defendant to complete the contracts by payments and delivery, having regard to his position and means. It must, futhur be shown that the contracts which   the plaintiff entered into with the third persons on the behalf of the defendant were wagering contracts as between the plaintiff and those third persons.[43]  It has also been held that that the deposit paid on wagering contract cannot be  recovered in a case subject to the provisions of Section 1 of the Bombay Act, whether the person suing the winter or a loser in the transaction.[44] An agreement to settle differences arising out of a normal agreement for sale which was really a gamble is no less void than original wagering transaction.[45]

    4. Legal Validity of Wagering Agreement Under English Law


     4.1 Introduction


    The law relating to gaming, wagering and gambling contract can be said to have developed in  three stages; (1) the original common law position was that, in general, such contract were valid, though this position was subject to significant qualifications.(2) This common law position was revered by a number of Gaming Act of 1710, 1835, 1845 and 1892, originally with the object of restricting credit for gaming[46] and later for the purpose of invalidating contracts by way of gaming and wagering[47] as well as certain transactions related to such contracts.[48] (3) Part 17 of the Gambling Act 2005 came into force on September 1, 2007 and fundamentally changed the law with regard to gaming and wagering contract as contained in the legislation which has governed it at the second stage of its development. Section 334(1) of the Gaming Act 2005 repeals this legislation,[49]though s.334(2) makes it clear that these repeals do not have retrospective effect. Section 356 repeats those repeals, as well as repealing the remaining provision of the Gaming Acts of 1710 to 1892 which had not been repealed by earlier legislations.[50] Section 356 also repeals a number of other Acts, including the gaming act 1968,[51] s.16 of which had imposed further restrictions on credit
    for gaming; though the policy of restricting such credit for gambling continues to be reflected in the 2005 act.[52] As none of the above repeals are retrospective, the legal effect of gambling transactions concluded before September 1, 2007 continues to depend on the now repeal legislation which govern such transaction during the second of the stage of development, described above.

    The main purpose of this Act is to create a new scheme for the regulation of gambling in Great Britain, supervised by a body (The Gambling Commission) created by the Act.[53] Te scheme does not extend to transaction (such as contracts for differences) which are regulated under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000,[54] or to the National Lottery.[55] The general principle underlying the act is that commercial Gambling which does not fall within either of the above exception is unlawful unless a licensed has been obtained from the appropriate local authority[56] and the condition of the license have been complied with.[57] The licensing requirement described above and the offences resulting from the failure to comply with them do not extend to “private”[58] gaming or betting or to certain other non- commercial gaming or betting.[59]

    4.2, Gambling Gaming and Betting


    “Gambling” in the 2005 Act means gaming, betting and participating in a lottery.[60] “Gaming” means playing a game of chance (not included as sport) for a prize.[61] “Betting” is defined in s.9(1) to mean “making or accepting a bet on (a) the outcome of a race, competition or other event or process, (b) the likelihood of anything occurring or not occurring or (c) whether anything is or not true.” The “events” (on which the outcome of the bet can depend) in some important respects resemble those which could, before the coming into force of the 2005 Act, be the subject of the wager (an expression which forms no part of the definition of “gambling” “gaming” or “betting” in the 2005 Act) within the definition which had  been formulated and elaborated at common law for the purpose of the earlier Gaming Act which are now repealed.

     4.3 Enforceability of Gambling Contract


    4.3.1Enforceability at common law


    Unlike the Indian Law, the common law position was that wagers were valid and could thus be enforced by the winner.[62] This rule was not much liked by the courts, which refused to enforce wages on many grounds. Some wages were illegal: these included wagers on unlawful games[63]; wagers that one of the parties would commit a legal wrong or do an immoral act; wagers which affected the interests and feeling of a third person so as to make a breach of the peace likely; in wagers which were “against sound policy.”[64] On this last ground, the following wagers were held void: a wager that peace between England and France would be concluded by September 1797[65]; a wager on the life of Napoleon in time of peace[66]; a wager tending to cost public disorder[67]; a wager with voters in a constituency as to the outcome of an election in the constituency.

    4.3.2  Enforceability under Gambling Act 2005


    The restrictions on the enforceability of wagering contract which had been imposed by the legislative provisions were removed by the repeal of those provisions by the Gambling Act 2005, but these repeals did not, of themselves, restore the common law rule by which wagering contracts were, in general, legally enforceable. It is therefore section 335(1) provides that “the fact that a contract relates to gambling shall not prevent its enforcement.” The phrase “shall not prevent” under section 335(1) does not in terms say that contracts relating to gambling shall be legally enforceable. Instead, it lays down the general rule to this effect by providing that the fact that a contract is so related shall not prevent its enforcement. The reason for formulating the general rule of enforceability in this way is to make allowance for the fact that the contract relates to gambling. The phrase “the fact that a contract relates to gambling”[68] is wide enough to cover not only the gambling contract itself but also associated transactions suggest agency agreements related to gambling, partnership, stakeholder, securities and loans gambling.  

    READ  JUDICIAL REVIEW - Supreme court

    5.Conclusion


    Neither in India nor in England has the legislature born so far as to enact in express terms that the betting transaction are illegal, but it is clear that both these countries the legislature regards it as undesirable in the public interest that any assistance should be given by the Court of law to enforce obligations which have been created in connection with betting or wagering contracts.[69] While law in England started recognising betting as legal more than a decade back but the position remains the same in India as it was in earlier days.

    The common law of England and that of India have never struck down contract of wagers on the ground of public policy; indeed they have always been held to be not illegal notwithstanding the fact that the statute declared them void. Even after the contracts of wager were declared to be void in England, collateral contracts were enforced till the passing of Gaming Act of 1892, and in India, except in the State of Bombay, there been enforced even after the passing of the Act 21 of 1848, which was substituted by section 30.[70] The moral prohibitions in Hindu Law texts against gambling were not only legally enforced but were allowed to fall into desuetude. In practise, though gambling is controlled in specific matters, it has not been declared illegal and there is no law declaring wagering illegal.[71]

    CLICK HERE TO JOIN LAW COLUMN’S TELEGRAM AND WHATSAPP GROUPS

    1] Indian Contract Act, 1872.

    [2] Ramloll Thackoorseydass v. Soojunmull Dhondmull, (1848) 4 MIA 339; Doolubdas Pettamberdass v. Ramloll Thackoorseydass, (1850) 5 MIA 109; Rughoonauth Sahoi v. Manackchund, (1856) 6 MIA 251; Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya, (1959) Supp 2 SCR 406, AIR 1959 SC 781.

    [3] State of Bombay v. RMD, Chamarbaughwala, [1957] SCR 874, AIR 1957 SC 699, 721.

    [4] AIR 1957 SC 699

    [5] Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya, (1959) Supp 2 SCR 406, AIR 1959 SC 781.

    [6] RMD, Chamarbaughwala v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628 at 631, [ 1957] SCR 930; State of Bombay v. RMD, Chamarbaughwala, [1957] SCR 874, AIR 1957 SC 699, 720.

    [7] Constitution of India,  Seventh Schedule, List II, Entry No. 34

    [8] The Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gaming Act, 1976

    [9] Sikkim Casinos (Control and Tax) Act, 2002 read with Sikkim Casino Games Commencement (Control and Tax) Rules, 2007 and Sikkim Casino Games (Control and Tax) Amendment Rules, 2011.

    [10] Gherulal v. Mahadeo (1959) 2 SCA 342.

    [11] Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya, (1959) 2 SCR (supp) 406: AIR 1959 SC 781.

    [12] Alamai v. Positive Government Security Life Assurance Co., (1898) 23 Bom 191.

    [13] Thacker v. Hardy, (1879) 4 QBD 685, 695.

    [14] Gianmal Sobhagmal v. Mukundchand Balia AIR 1926 PC 119, 53 IA 241, 51 Bom 1; Ram Prasad Shayam Sundar Lal v. Ramji Lal, (1927) 50 AII 115, 103 IC 218, AIR 1927 AII 795.

    [15] Dayabhai Tribhovandas v. Laxmichand Panachand, (1885) 9 Bom 358.  

    [16] E Sassoon v. Tokersey Jadhawjee, (1904) 28 Bom 616; Boppana Venkataratnam v. Kamalakara Hunumantha Rao, AIR 1935 Mad 135; Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., [1892] 2 QB 484; Weddle, Beck & Co v. Hackett, [1929] 1 KB 321 at 329, [1928] AII ER Rep 539, and in Ellesmere v. Wallec [1929] 2 Ch 1 at 24; cf  Tote Investors Ltd. v. Smoker, [1968] 1 QB 509 at 516, 518, [1967] 3 AII ER 242.

    [17]Shoolbred v. Roberts, (1899) 2 QB 560, per PHILLIMORE J at p. 265.

    [18] Contract  and specific relief, Avatar Singh, 10th  edn., page no. 336 eastern book company

    [19] Narayana Ayyangar v. Vallachami Ambalam (1927) ILR 50 Mad 696 (FB).

    [20] Anson’s Law of Contracts, 27th edn, pp. 337- 38.  

    [21] Carllil v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1892) 2 QB 484, affirmed in [1893] 1 QB 256, [1891- 1894] AII ER Rep 127.

    [22] Boppana Venkataratnam v. Kamalakura Hunumantha Rao, AIR 1935 Mad 135.

    [23] Boppana Venkataratnam v. Kamalakura Hunumantha Rao, AIR 1935 Mad 135; Walyt Ram Ram Ditta Mal v. Bhagwan Dass Rajinder Kumar, AIR 1960 Punj 471.

    [24] Dayabhai Tribhovandas v. Laxmichand Panachand, (1885) 9 Bom 358 at 363.

    [25] Alamiya v. Positive Govt Security Life Assurance Co, (1898) 23 Bom 191; Kathma Natchair v. Dora Singa, (1875) 2 IA 169.

    [26] BLACKBURN J in Wilson v. Jones, (1867) 2 Ex 139; Manishankar v. Alliam Und Stuttagarter Life Ass Bank Ltd, 193 IC 155.

    [27] Lord CAMPBELL CJ in Rourke v. Short, 119 ER 717; Brogden v. Marriott (1836) 8 Bing (HC) 88: 5 LJ (CP) 302.

    [28] S.P. Bhoominathan Chettiar v. K.S.M. Chari & Co., AIR 1944 Mad 321: 57 MLW 137 (DB); Strachan v. Universal Stock Exchange Ltd., (1895) 2 QB 329.

    [29] Kundan Lal Ram Chandar v. Lachmi Narain, AIR 1930 All 525 (DB).

    [30] Govind Ram Ram Chandra v. Gulab Singh Rulia Ram, (1929) 30 Pun LR 596.

    [31] G.K. Chengravelu Chetty and Sons v. Akarapu Venkanna and Sons, AIR 1925 Mad 971: 49 MLJ 300 (DB).

    [32] Srikakolapur Venkataraju v. Gudivada Ramanujam, AIR 1918 Mad 163: 7 MLW 518 (DB).

    [33] R.Muthuswami Pillai v. S. Veeraswami Pillai, AIR 1936 Mad 486: 70 MLJ 433; De Mattos v. Banjamin, (1894) 63 LJ QB 248: 70 LT 560; Maung Po Htaik v. Bramadin, AIR 1929 Ran 244: 119 IC 740 (DB).

    [34] Maung Po Hmein v. Maung Aung Mya, AIR 1926 Rang 48: 93 IC 105.

    [35] Aya Ram Tola Ram v. Sadhu Lal, AIR 1938 Lah 781 (DB).

    [36] Khitendra Nath Roy Chowdhary v. Madaneswar Chatterjee, AIR 1937 Cal 297: 63 Cal 1234.

    [37] Goaldas Daga v. Manicklal Baity, AIR 1941 Cal 125: 193 IC 603; Thakur Das Bagai v. C.N. Bhargava, (1963) 65 Pun LR 1054.

    [38] Constitution of India, Seventh Schedule, List I, Entry No. 40

    [39] Coles v. Odhams Press, (1936) 1 KB 416.

    [40] Witty v. Word Services Ltd., (1936) Ch 303.

    [41] Shesha Aiyar v. Krishna Aiyer, AIR 1936 Mad 225; 70 MLJ 36.

    [42] Kshiteendra v. Madaneshwar, (1937) 63 Cal 1234.

    [43] Perosha v. Manekji, (1898) 22 Bom 889, 907; Sassoon v. Tokersey, (1904) 28 Bom 616.

    [44] Ramchandra v. Gangabison, (1910) 12 Bom LR 590.

    [45] Jivanchand Ghambirmal v. Laxminarayan, (1925) 49 Bom 689: 27 Bom LR 941: 89 IC 885: AIR 1925 Bom 511.

    [46] Gaming Acts 1710 and 1835

    [47] Gaming Act 1845, s.18

    [48] Gaming Act 1892, s.1

    [49] Ss.334(1)(e) and 356 and Sch.17 also delete the reference to s.18 of the Gaming Act 1845and s.1 of the Gaming Act 1892 from s.412 of the financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Below para.41- 003).

    [50] S.356 (3) (a), (c), (d) and (e); section. 356(4) and Sch 17.

    [51] s.356 (3) (g); s. 356(4) and Sch 17. Section 356 contains no express provisions, comparable to that contained in s. 356, their prospective nature follows from the general presumption against giving legislation retrospective effect.

    [52] Gambling Act 2005, ss.81, 177; “credit” is defined in s.81(4)

    [53] Gambling Act 2005,  section.20

    [54] s.10; Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, s.412 as amended by Gambling Act 2005, s. 334(1)(e), 356 (4) and Sch.17.

    [55] Gambling Act 2005, s.15, except for the purposes of ss. 42 and 335: s.15(2).

    [56] Gambling Act 2005, s.2

    [57] Gambling Act 2005, ss.33(1) and (2), 37(1) and (2)

    [58] Gambling Act 2005, s.296

    [59] Gambling Act 2005, s.297-302

    [60] Gambling Act 2005, s.39 (a)

    [61] Gambling Act 2005, s.6

    [62] Micklefield v. Hipgin (1760) 1 Anst. 33; Good v. Elliott (1790) 3 T.R. 693; Hussey v. Crickitt (1811) 3 Camp. 168; Khodari v. Tamimi [2010] EWCA Civ 1109 at [18].

    [63] Jenks v. Turpin (1884) 13 Q.B.D. 505, 524.

    [64] Good v. Elliott (1790) 3 T.R. 693, 695

    [65] Lacaussade v. White (1798) 2 Esp. 629

    [66] Gilbert v. Sykes (1812) 16 East 150.

    [67] Eltham v. Kingsman (1818)
    1 P. & Ald. 683

    [68] Gambling Act 2005, s.337(1)

    [69] Walter Mitchell v. A.K. Tennent, AIR 1925 Cal 1007: 90 IC 59; W.Banvard v. M.M.Moolla, AIR 1929 Ranj 241: 119 IC 215.

    [70] Indian Contract Act, 1872

    [71] Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya, (1959) Supp 2 SCR 406, AIR 1959 SC 781: 1959 Supp (2) SCR 406; Mahadeodas v. Gherulal Parakh, AIR 1958 Cal 703: ILR (1956) 1 Cal 297 (DB).

    Leave a Comment