https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311141 Disciplinary proceedings against a Presiding Officer of the DRT cannot be sustained merely because a compromise order and closure of recovery proceedings are later viewed as commercially unwise or legally erroneous. Where the record showed that the bank sought acceptance of the settlement and stood by it, and there was no allegation of corrupt motive, ulterior consideration, mala fides, recklessness, or undue favour, the statutory protection for acts done in good faith applied. Mere error in the exercise of quasi-judicial power is not misconduct, and disciplinary action based only on disagreement with the judicial order was quashed. en-us Tue, 25 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Dec 2023 20:33:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311141 Disciplinary proceedings against a Presiding Officer of the DRT cannot be sustained merely because a compromise order and closure of recovery proceedings are later viewed as commercially unwise or legally erroneous. Where the record showed that the bank sought acceptance of the settlement and stood by it, and there was no allegation of corrupt motive, ulterior consideration, mala fides, recklessness, or undue favour, the statutory protection for acts done in good faith applied. Mere error in the exercise of quasi-judicial power is not misconduct, and disciplinary action based only on disagreement with the judicial order was quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 25 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311141