This section does not preclude a lawsuit against an agent or trustee in respect of a cash prize derived from a betting contract in the name of its principle.  If a broker is acting on behalf of its client and the client is playing, the client cannot raise a gambling and betting plea against the broker`s claim.  Thus, after reviewing all the case law, the views of lawyers and the problems encountered by the court in dealing with the Paris Agreements, and on the basis of my analysis above, I have come to the conclusion that it is necessary to amend section 30 of the Indian Contracts Act to make it clearer. Improvement of its scope and other changes according to the developments that the company must take into account. In the case of Narayana Ayyangar v. Vallachami Ambalam, the Chit Fund cannot be a betting agreement, was judged in this case. As in the Chit fund, there is the possibility of rain, but there is no chance of losing because the actual amount of the subscription is returned. So there is no loss and the mutual chance of losing or winning is missing. Therefore, Chit Fund is not a betting agreement. It was found that the agreement could not be considered as one of the legal provisions relating to betting. In this case, neither team had to lose after the outcome of the wrestling match. “The stakes do not come out of the pockets of the parties, but had to be paid from the money of the objectives provided by the public.”  State governments may approve horse racing competition if local laws permit.
In such cases, a subscription or contribution worth Rs.500 or more paid for a prize or sum of money to be awarded to the winner of a horse race is not illegal. In other words, agreements to sign or contribute to such a prize or amount of money are also valid and enforceable. The Supreme Court has held that if an agreement on another agreement or aid intended to facilitate the implementation of the object of the other agreement, which is void but is not in itself prohibited within the meaning of Article 23 of the Treaty Act, may be executed as an ancillary agreement. If, on the other hand, it is part of a mechanism to go against what the law has effectively prohibited, the courts will not quash a claim based on the agreement because it is fraught with the illegality of the objective to be achieved, which is affected by article 23 of the Contracts Act. . . .