Difference between Judicial and Quasi Judicial Action

The quasi-judicial function differs from a purely judicial function in the following respects.
(i) A quasi-judicial authority has some of the trappings of a court, but not all of them; nevertheless there is an obligation to act judicially.
(ii) A lis inter parts is an essential characteristic of a judicial function, but this may not be true of a quasi-judicial function.
(iii) A court is bound by the rules of evidence and procedure while a quasi-judicial authority is not.
(iv) While precedents bind a court a quasi-judicial authority is not.
(v) A court cannot be a judge in its own cause (except in contempt cases), while an administrative authority vested with quasi-judicial powers may be a party to the controversy but can still decide it.
In Bharat Bank, Ltd., Delhi v. Employees of the Bharat Bank, Ltd., Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 188, Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon following quotation :-
"A true judicial decision presupposes an existing dispute between two or more parties, and then avolves four requisites : (1) the presentation (not necessarily orally) of their case by the parties to the dispute; (2) if the dispute between them is a question of fact the ascertainment of the last by means of evidence adduced by the parties to the dispute and often with the assistance of argument by or on behalf of the parties on the evidence; (3) if the dispute between them is a question of law, the submission of legal argument by the parties; and (4) a decision which disposes of the whole matter by a finding upon the facts in dispute and application of the law of the land to the facts so found, including where required a ruling upon any disputed question of law. A quasi-judicial decision equally presupposes an existing dispute between two or more parties and involves (1) and (2), but does not necessarily involve (3) and never involves (4). The place of (4) is in fact taken by administrative sanction, the character of which is determined by the Minister's free choice."