Strachey, C.J, and Banerji, J.:— This was a suit brought by an agent to recover from his principal a balance due to him on account of commission and losses incurred by him in the business of his agency which was the purchase and sale of grain. The substantial defence was that the transactions were not, as they professed to be, genuine transactions of sale and purchase of grain, but were merely gambling transactions in differences. The Court of first instance took that view of the transactions and dismissed the suit. On appeal the Additional Subordinate Judge set aside the first Court's decree, and remanded the case under section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to the lower Court for trial on the merits. The lower appellate Court held that, notwithsanding that the transactions effected by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant with third parties were gambling transactions only, the defendant was nevertheless bound to make good the losses incurred in those transactions to the plaintiff and pay the commission claimed. In that view we think the Court was right. Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act shows that a wagering contract is void, but it does not say that it is illegal. The judgment of Sir Michael Westroop C.J, in Parakh Govardhanbhai Haribhai v. Ransordas Dulabhdas , shows that it does not follow because a wagering contract is void that contracts collateral to it cannot be enforced, and “the fact that a person has constituted another person his agent to enter into and conduct wagering transactions in the name of the latter but on behalf of the former, to principal, amounts to a request by the principal to the agent to pay the amount of the losses, if any, on those wagering transactions”—see also Thacker v. Hardy . There is in these Provinces no enactment similar to the Gaming Act, 1892 (55 Vic., cap. IX), and Bombay Act III of 1865, according to which contracts collateral to or in respect of wagering transactions cannot support a suit. It is contended, however, that there is nothing in the present case to show that the defendant ever authorized the plaintiff to enter into transactions in differences only or other than genuine transactions of sale and purchase, that the plaintiff in entering into gambling transactions exceeded his authority, and that consequently the defendant is not liable either to make good the losses or to pay the commission. We construe the judgment of the lower appellate Court, however, as finding that the defendant was aware of and authorized the plaintiff to either into the transactions in question. That being so, the order of the lower appellate Court remanding the case under section 562 is correct, and this appeal must be dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.