TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the sale could be set aside under Section 310A on the basis of an alleged mistake of the Court or information said to have been given by a court officer, and whether a remand should be ordered to ascertain the facts surrounding the deposit.
Analysis: Relief under Section 310A required proof that the short deposit resulted from a mistake attributable to the Court itself. A casual act or unauthorized information from a court officer was insufficient. On the facts before the Court, the Munsif had not fixed the amount payable, nor was it shown that the officer who allegedly supplied information was the prescribed officer empowered to do so under the relevant rules. The request to remand the matter was declined because it would improperly reopen the litigation without a proper factual basis.
Conclusion: The requirements for setting aside the sale were not satisfied, and no remand was warranted.
Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded, and the sale was not to be set aside on the materials before the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: Relief based on a court-related mistake requires proof that the error is attributable to an act of the Court performed by the prescribed officer in accordance with the applicable rules; an unauthorized or casual communication does not suffice.
TaxTMI 
