With regard to the supplementary position, it was also found that it was not possible to recover the deposit paid in the betting contract; in a case subject to the provisions of paragraph 1 of the Bombay Act, as the person suing the winter or a loser of the transaction.  Section 2: „There is no recourse in court to recover commissions, brokers or rewards for the performance or performance of knowledge or knowledge that, during execution or execution or in any other way, is claimed or subject to the obligation to apply such agreements through gambling or betting or such contracts. , as noted above, if the plaintiff is in such an action or party to such an agreement or contract, or for the recovery of a sum of money that is knowingly paid or payable to persons such as a commission, brokerage fee or reward in relation to such an agreement through gambling or betting or contracts as shown above. „The „events” (which may depend on the outcome of the bet) are similar, in some important respects, to those that might be the subject of the bet before the 2005 Act (a term that is not part of the definition of „gambling” or „betting” in the 2005 Act) in the definition formulated and developed in the Common Law for the purposes of the old Gambling Act that were removed. Agreements between the parties provided that the first part is paid to the second part regarding the occurrence of an uncertain future event and the second part of the first part, if the event does not take place, are called betting agreements or bets. In a betting deal, there should be a mutual chance of winning and losing. As a general rule, betting contracts are not valid. The second most important feature of the betting contract is that there must be two people, one of whom is capable of winning or losing There is an agreement between A and B which provides that if the Indian cricket team beats the Pakistani cricket team, A 1,000 Rs. and if the Pakistani cricket team beats the Indian cricket team , B will pay 10 rs. The deal is a gamble. In India, the betting agreements were explicitly cancelled. It cannot therefore be applied in any court. Section 30 of the Act states that the Supreme Court has decided that where an agreement is a guarantee for another or aid intended to facilitate the implementation of the purpose of the other convention, which is in itself a nullity, it can be executed as a collateral agreement within the meaning of S 23 of the Contracts Act.
On the other hand, if it is part of a mechanism to defeat what the law has effectively prohibited, the courts will not accept a claim based on the agreement, because it is tainted by an illegality of the purpose sought by S 23 of the Contracts Act. An agreement cannot be characterized as prohibited or illegal simply because it gives rise to a nullity contract. an unducded agreement, if it is related to other facts, may be part of a transaction that creates legal rights, but this is not the case if the object is prohibited or mala in it. In England, too, betting contract agreements were not invalidated until the Gambling Act was passed in 1892. For example, in Read v Anderson[xxxvii], a betting firm made bets on its own behalf at the defendant`s request on behalf of the defendant. Once the bets were settled and lost, the defendant withdrew the payment power to the betting agent. Despite the revocation, the agent paid the bets and sued the defendant who had allowed the agent to bet on his behalf, the authority was irrevocable and the agent was entitled to judge. The statutes of 1892, adopted as a result of this decision, are almost identical to those of the Bombay Act.
It is interesting to note that the statute was not adopted until 27 years after the Bombay Act.