TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Denied: Lottery Prize Agreement Void as Wager.</h1> <h3>Subhash Kumar Manwani Versus State of M.P. and Ors.</h3> The appeal against the dismissal of a suit for recovery of a lottery prize was denied by the Supreme Court. The court upheld the trial judge's decision ... - Issues:1. Enforceability of a lottery prize in civil court under Section 30 of the Contract Act.Analysis:The judgment involves an appeal against the dismissal of a suit for recovery of a lottery prize. The trial judge based the dismissal on the premise that a promise to pay a prize in a lottery constitutes an agreement by way of wager, which is void under Section 30 of the Contract Act. This decision was influenced by a Division Bench ruling that upheld a similar dismissal based on a Bombay High Court decision. The appellant argued that since the lottery was conducted with state permission, it should not be considered illegal, and thus, the civil court should enforce the prize claim.The court examined the definition of a lottery under the M.P. Lottery Act of 1973, which includes schemes for prize distribution based on chance. Despite provisions in state and central laws regulating lotteries, the court concluded that the nature of a lottery prize agreement remains that of a wagering contract, falling under the purview of Section 30 of the Contract Act. The Supreme Court's stance on state-sponsored lotteries as games of chance without skill further supported this view. The court emphasized that the legislative intent behind Section 30 is to discourage engaging in games of chance for profit, aligning with public policy considerations.In light of the legal principles and precedents discussed, the court found that the trial judge's decision to deny relief for the plaintiff's lottery prize claim was justified. The court held that despite regulatory frameworks governing lotteries, the fundamental nature of a lottery prize agreement as a wager remains unchanged, warranting dismissal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without costs, affirming the trial court's ruling on the enforceability of the lottery prize in a civil court under Section 30 of the Contract Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
