https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105485 A disciplinary review cannot be used to reopen a concluded punishment on the same facts without a legally permissible ground, and a mere shift to a more lenient view does not justify substituting a lesser penalty. An advocate's admitted letter seeking money for influencing a judge was treated as serious professional misconduct under the Advocates Act, as it was incompatible with the ethical standards of the legal profession. The original order imposing permanent debarment was upheld on the merits discussed in the text. en-us Thu, 26 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Aug 2013 10:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105485 A disciplinary review cannot be used to reopen a concluded punishment on the same facts without a legally permissible ground, and a mere shift to a more lenient view does not justify substituting a lesser penalty. An advocate's admitted letter seeking money for influencing a judge was treated as serious professional misconduct under the Advocates Act, as it was incompatible with the ethical standards of the legal profession. The original order imposing permanent debarment was upheld on the merits discussed in the text. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 26 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105485