The second most important feature of the betting contract is that there must be two people, each of whom is capable of winning or losing the „betting contract”. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wagering%20contract. (accessed November 27, 2020) Under section 30 of the Indian Contract Act 1872, betting agreements cannot be enforced in any court because they have been expressly annulled. No lawsuit may be brought in court with the intention of recovering something allegedly won in a bet or a party`s non-compliance with the results of the bet. It can be said that the law on gambling, betting and gambling contracts developed in three stages; The parties to the agreement can only focus on the outcome on which they bet their money. The parties have no interest in the case other than winning or losing. So the only goal must be to bet. An insurable interest in the contract is not called a betting contract. There must be the absence of any kind of consideration on the part of the parties to make it a betting agreement. 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. Moral prohibitions in Hindu legal texts against gambling have not only been legally enforced, but have also been allowed to fall into disarray. In practice, gambling is certainly controlled in some cases, but it has not been declared illegal and there is no law declaring gambling illegal.  The betting agreement is not defined in the Indian Contracts Act, 1860. Cotton, L.J. to Thacker v. Hardy said, „The essence of betting and gambling is that one party must win and another is to stumble upon an upcoming event that is uncertain at the time of the treaty, that is, whether the future event goes in one direction, A will lose, but if it turns out differently, it will win.” In Badridas Kothari V. Meghraj Kothari, two people entered into equity betting transactions and one went into debt with others.
A debt voucher was executed to pay this debt. The statement was found to be unenforceable. In other words, a new promise to pay money won in a bet is also not valid. One of the most important foundations of a betting agreement is that it must depend on an uncertain event. The event may be past, present or future, but the parties do not need to be aware of its future or when its results or when it occurs. This distinguishes an insurance contract from a bet. Any insurance contract presupposes the existence of an insurable interest for its validity. Assigned insurance without insurable interest is nothing more than a betting contract and therefore void.  „insurable interest” means the risk of loss to which the insureds are likely to be exposed as a result of the occurrence of the event […].