9911796707
TMI Blog1930 (9) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The parties are wrestlers and entered into an agreement as follows: firstly, they were to wrestle in Poona on a certain day; secondly, the party failing to appear on that day was to forfeit ₹ 500 to the opposite party; thirdly, the winner was to receive ₹ 1,125 of the gate-money. The defendant failed to appear in the ring and the plaintiff sued for ₹ 500. The plea o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abison (1910)12BOMLR590 . The terms gaming and wagering are nowhere defined. The happening of an uncertain event may be one of the tests (see Sassoon v. Tokersey ILR (1903) 28 Bom. 616 : 6 Bom. L. R. 503. 6. In an agreement if different clauses are separable, the fact that one clause, is void does not necessarily cause the other clauses to fail. In the present case we are not satisfied t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but not recoverable if it was subscribed for by the competitors themselves. Thus, in the present case, such a clause would not necessarily be void under the English statutes or under the Bombay Act. 7. For these reasons, the view of the trial Court is, in our opinion, correct, the application is dismissed and the rule discharged with costs. K.W. Barlee, J. 8. I agree. The plaintiff an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ince neither side stood to lose according to the result of the wrestling match. The agreement was that the winner was to take the whole of the proceeds of the gate and though the loser was to get nothing he was not to pay anything and was not to be out of pocket in any way. In the case quoted by the learned advocate this distinction is clear. In Diggle v. Higgs (1877) 2 Ex, D. 422 each of the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
