Principal's claim against agent survives wagering illegality where money was received on the principal's behalf and must be accounted for.

Section 30 of the Contract Act does not bar a principal's claim against an agent for money received on the principal's behalf under void or illegal wagering contracts, where the other contracting party has waived the illegality and paid the money to the agent. The agent cannot refuse to account on the basis of the underlying illegality once receipt on behalf of the principal is established. The text also notes that a fresh finding was required on the amount actually received by the defendants and the balance, if any, payable after deductions for brokerage, commission, and other contractual charges, with a limited remand directed for that inquiry.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 30 of the Contract Act barred the principal's claim against his agent for money received under contracts entered into through the agent with third parties. (ii) Whether the case required remand for determination of the amount, if any, actually received by the defendants and due to the plaintiff.

Issue (i): Whether section 30 of the Contract Act barred the principal's claim against his agent for money received under contracts entered into through the agent with third parties.

Analysis: The contracts were within the scope of section 30 of the Contract Act and would not support a suit by a party to the wagering contract to recover profits from the other party. But the claim before the Court was not such a suit. It was a claim by a principal against his agent for money received on the principal's behalf. An agent who receives money for his principal under an illegal or void contract cannot resist accounting by relying on the illegality once the other contracting party has waived it and paid the money.

Conclusion: Section 30 of the Contract Act did not bar the plaintiff's claim against the defendants, and the legal objection to the claim failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the case required remand for determination of the amount, if any, actually received by the defendants and due to the plaintiff.

Analysis: The amount actually received by the defendants as profit from the contracts had not been ascertained. The existing entries in the account books did not establish actual recovery by the defendants. A fresh finding was therefore necessary on the amount received and the balance, if any, payable to the plaintiff after deductions for brokerage, commission, and other contractual charges. The Court directed remand for this limited inquiry under section 566 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for a finding on the amount actually received and the sum, if any, due to the plaintiff.

Final Conclusion: The legal objection based on wagering illegality was rejected, but the decree could not be finally settled without a finding on the actual receipts and the amount payable after permissible deductions.

Ratio Decidendi: An agent who receives money for his principal cannot defeat the principal's claim by relying on the illegality of the underlying contract when the other contracting party has waived that illegality and paid the money over to the agent.

---