Anil entered into a betting agreement with Bhushan in the city of Delhi and lost ₹ 40,000. To discharge this liability, Anil borrowed the amount from Kapil, who directly paid to Bhushan. Later, Anil refused to repay Kapi

The literal meaning of the word "wager" is a "bet". Wagering agreements are nothing but ordinary betting agreements. The essence of gaming and wagering is that one party is to win and the other to lose upon a future event which at the time of the contract is of an uncertain nature that is to say, if the event turns out one way A will lose; but if it turns out the other way he will win. In India except Mumbai, wagering agreements are void (Section 30 of the Indian Contract, 1872). In Mumbai, wagering agreements have been declared illegal by the Avoiding Wagers (Amendment) Act, 1865. Therefore, in Mumbai a wagering agreement being illegal, is void not only between the immediate parties, but taints and renders void all collateral agreements to it. If wagering is illegal, collateral transactions are also void. If wagering is only void, collateral transactions remain valid. Here in this case, Anil entered into a betting agreement with Bhushan in the city of Delhi and lost ₹ 40,000. To discharge this liability, Anil had borrowed the amount from Kapil who directly paid to Bhushan. Later, Anil refused to repay Kapil. Kapil can recover the amount from Anil as wagering transaction took place in Delhi and here wagering is only void. But if the betting agreement took place in Mumbai, Kapil cannot recover the amount from Anil if the wagering transaction is illegal and the loan is inseparably connected with that illegal transaction.