In that appeal, it was asked whether a partnership agreement for the purpose of entering into betting transactions was unlawful within the meaning of section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. The applicant and Respondent No. 1 entered into a partnership with two other companies for the purpose of entering into futures contracts for the purchase and sale of wheat, and the agreement between them was that the respondent entered into the contracts on behalf of the partnership and that the profit or loss be shared equally by the parties. The transactions resulted in a loss and the defendant paid the full amount due to third parties. The applicant, who contested her liability for half of the damage, sued him with a view to recovering it and her defence was, inter alia, that the agreement concluded under Article 23 of the Law on betting contracts was unlawful. The court dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the High Court held that, although betting contracts are annual under section 30 of the Indian Contract Act, the purpose of the partnership was not unlawful within the meaning of the law and ordered the remedy. Any law based on such a fluid concept would therefore annihilate its purpose. The provisions of P.
23 of the Indian Contract Act indicated that Parliament intended to give a limited meaning to this word. The restriction imposed on it by the phrase “the Court of Justice considers it immoral” has made it clear that it is also a branch of the common law and should therefore be limited to principles recognized and regulated by the courts. Court decisions limited him to sexual immorality, and bets could not be put like a new head in his herd. Another element of the betting agreement is that each party to the agreement should win or lose depending on the outcome of the uncertain event.