Case Details

Citation(s)
2001 SLG 3002 2001 SLD 3002 = 2001 PLD 129
Lahore High Court
Intra-Court Appeals Nos.344, 380, 395, 402 and 693 of 2000, heard on 14th November, 2000.
Presented By: Amir Alam Khan and Syed Zahid Hussain, JJ
Nemo for
Respondents.

ANJUMAN PRIZE BOND DEALERS---Appellant

VERSUS

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and 3 others---Respondents

Law:

Section:

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---   ----Art. 18---Right of lawful business or trade---Scope---Every citizen, under Art. 18 of the Constitution, has a right to enter into any lawful profession or occupation or to conduct any lawful trade or business.   (b) Contract---   ----Wagering contract---Meaning.   Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn. ref.   (c) Words and phrases--   ----"Wager"---Defined.   Black's Law Dictionary, 6th.Edn. ref.   (d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---   ----Art. 18---Lawful 'trade or business---Wagering contract ---Scope-- Wagering contract is practically synonymous with the words betting and gambling and the terms are so used in common parlance---Such contract is unlawful and cannot be termed as lawful trade or business.   (e) Contract Act (IX of 1872)----   ----S. 23---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art-199 ---Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3---Intra-Court Appeal---Prize Bond dealers ---Parchi system---Wagering contract---Contract opposed to public policy-- Scope---Prize Bond dealers instead of selling prize bonds used to issue serial numbers of Prize Bonds to their customers commonly known as Parchi system---Said system was declared to be illegal by the Government in its Circular---Circular was challenged in Constitutional petition before High Court---High Court dismissed the petition---Validity---Agreement between the parties was that of wagering, which was synonymous with betting or gambling---Where such contract was allowed to be entered into and given effect, the consideration or the object of the agreement would be unlawful and the same would become void---Such agreement was not only immoral but also opposed to the public policy---High Court expressed its concern that it would be unjust and unfair to leave the people in the hands of unwary Prize Bond Dealers, who had established their business without the backing of any law as also without any license thereby regulating their affairs---Sale and purchase of Prize Bonds was backed by guarantee of the State and so was the case about the prizes while in case of the dealers no such guarantee…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register