https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280127 Relief under Section 310A required proof that a short deposit resulted from a mistake attributable to the Court itself, made by the prescribed officer under the applicable rules. An unauthorized or casual communication from a court officer was insufficient to justify setting aside the sale. On the facts stated, the Munsif had not fixed the amount payable, and it was not shown that the officer who allegedly gave information had the required authority. A remand was also declined because it would reopen the dispute without a proper factual foundation. The sale was therefore not set aside on the materials before the Court. en-us Fri, 03 Feb 1899 00:00:00 +0521 Mon, 22 Apr 2019 11:44:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280127 Relief under Section 310A required proof that a short deposit resulted from a mistake attributable to the Court itself, made by the prescribed officer under the applicable rules. An unauthorized or casual communication from a court officer was insufficient to justify setting aside the sale. On the facts stated, the Munsif had not fixed the amount payable, and it was not shown that the officer who allegedly gave information had the required authority. A remand was also declined because it would reopen the dispute without a proper factual foundation. The sale was therefore not set aside on the materials before the Court. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 03 Feb 1899 00:00:00 +0521 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280127