https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788766 A contractual clause allowing the administration to treat its decision as final could not conclusively determine whether the manning agent had committed wilful omission, neglect, or negligence where liability was disputed. Such a reading would offend the rule of law and the principle that no party can be a judge in its own cause. Clause 3.20 was read harmoniously with the broad arbitration clause and could operate only where liability was admitted and the administration merely quantified recovery. Because the claim was contested, the dispute remained within the arbitration clause, was not an excepted matter, and was subject to independent adjudication. en-us Mon, 23 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Mar 2026 08:57:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788766 A contractual clause allowing the administration to treat its decision as final could not conclusively determine whether the manning agent had committed wilful omission, neglect, or negligence where liability was disputed. Such a reading would offend the rule of law and the principle that no party can be a judge in its own cause. Clause 3.20 was read harmoniously with the broad arbitration clause and could operate only where liability was admitted and the administration merely quantified recovery. Because the claim was contested, the dispute remained within the arbitration clause, was not an excepted matter, and was subject to independent adjudication. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 23 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788766