https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277636 A prize kuri or chit scheme was treated as a lottery because payment of subscriptions bought a chance of winning an earlier prize by lot, and the assurance of eventual return of principal did not change that character; the promoters were therefore liable under the penal provision against lotteries. A subscribing purchaser who did not organise or control the scheme was not in pari delicto with the promoters, so restitution of the subscriptions was allowed under the protective principle reflected in the Trusts Act. The regulations did not limit liability to the scheme fund alone, so the promoters were personally liable to refund the amount, and the refund decree was sustained. en-us Wed, 02 Oct 1935 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Sep 2024 09:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277636 A prize kuri or chit scheme was treated as a lottery because payment of subscriptions bought a chance of winning an earlier prize by lot, and the assurance of eventual return of principal did not change that character; the promoters were therefore liable under the penal provision against lotteries. A subscribing purchaser who did not organise or control the scheme was not in pari delicto with the promoters, so restitution of the subscriptions was allowed under the protective principle reflected in the Trusts Act. The regulations did not limit liability to the scheme fund alone, so the promoters were personally liable to refund the amount, and the refund decree was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 02 Oct 1935 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277636