The second most important feature of the betting contract is that there must be two people, one of which is not in a position to win or lose in India or England, given that the legislator was born to the point of explicitly imposing the illegality of the betting transaction, but it is clear that the legislator of both countries considers it undesirable, in the public interest, for the Court to give any support to the performance of obligations created in the context of betting or betting contracts.  In Indian culture, bets have often been seen from antiquity, even though there were no cubes; Indian uses the nuts of the bhibhakti tree. If we go back to the mahabharata era, one of Indi`s oldest mythologies; Where the abilities of the opponents were not tested by a war, but by the game and the board. Under Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872, «agreements are bet; and no legal action is taken for debt collection or is entrusted to a person to stick to the outcome of a game or other uncertain event on which a bet is made. The section does not define «bets as..» but represents the entire law of the betting agreement/betting contract that is now imposed in India. In Alamai vs. Positive Government Security Life Assurance Co. A life insurance case, the judge stated «What is the meaning of the term «agreements by the betting method» in section 30 of the Contracts Act?» «A person with whom two persons who undertake to express opposing views on the issue of an uncertain future event agree that one wins from the other, depending on the determination of that event, and that others pay or give him a sum of money or another; None of the parties who have an interest other than the amount or share he will earn or lose, there is no other consideration for the drafting of such a contract by any of the parties. If one of the parties can win but cannot lose, but cannot win, it is not a betting contract. (see more) In the secular language, the term bet is a gamble. The meaning of the dictionary of the black law of the term bet means something risky, such as a sum of money in the event of an uncertain event, where the parties have no essential interest other than the mutual chance of «winning or losing». Therefore, if two parties enter into an agreement on the condition that the first party pays a fixed amount of money to the second part on the events of an uncertain future event and that the second party pays the first part if the event does not occur, it is referred to as a betting agreement. The betting contract must contain the promise to pay money or money. Insurance contracts are not bets at all, because they are compensation contracts. These contracts are entered into to protect and protect the interests of a party from damage, so this is not a gamble.
The third, and most important, issue concerns exceptions to betting agreements. Bets on horse racing are not considered bets in nature because it contains certain skills in it. Gambling and betting on horse racing are therefore allowed, but the thing we need to focus on is that gambling is generally something that the government does not promote because they think it is contrary to the public interest and the general well-being of people. So why are gambling and horse racing bets allowed? We must now refer to some of the cases that are the subject of this in order to get the answer to this question. The wagering agreement is not defined in the Indian Contract Act of 1860. Cotton, L.J. in Thacker v. Hardy said: «The essence of the bet and the game is that one game must win and another falls on an imminent event that is uncertain at the time of the contract, that is, if the future event shows a possibility, A will lose, but if it is different, it will win.» Section 30 simply states that «the agreement by bet is not concluded.»