Contentions Sample Clauses
Contentions. All disputes which would develop the execution or the interruption of this contract, only the courts of Les Sables d'Olonne and ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ sur ▇▇▇ are competent.
Contentions. Any contention related to the interpretation or the execution of the current agreement will be settled by the tribunals competent with the company’s registered office.
Contentions. ▇▇▇▇ Financial contends that ▇▇▇▇ Financial and its officers, directors, shareholders and employees did not willfully or knowingly fail to comply with reporting requirements of the CRMLA. ▇▇▇▇ Financial neither admits nor denies any wrongdoing in this matter.
Contentions. Notwithstanding their admissions herein, Advanced and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ contend that Advanced and its officers, directors, shareholders and employees did not willfully or knowingly (i) engage in the business of a finance lender; (ii) offer cash rebates that were loans subject to the CFLL; (iii) charge interest rates in excess of those allowed under the CFLL; and (iv) did not willfully or knowingly engage in business as a finance lender without a license in violation of the CFLL.
Contentions. CoActiv contends that CoActiv and its officers, directors, shareholders and employees did not willfully or knowingly engage in business as a finance lender without a license in violation of the CFLL. CoActiv neither admits nor denies any wrongdoing in this matter.
Contentions. GRL’s primary objection to CMC’s invocation of the arbitration provision and appointment of an arbitrator was that no stamp duty had been paid on the Agreement as a “works contract” under the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇. GRL highlighted that, Indian courts have regularly ruled that an arbitration agreement on which adequate stamp duty has not been paid cannot be acted upon even for the constitution of the arbitration panel or appointment of a sole arbitrator. CMC argued that the recently introduced Section 11(6A) changed this position, and Indian courts were now required only to verify the existence of the arbitration agreement prior to appointing an arbitrator. CMC insisted that the judgments delivered by Indian courts prior to 2015 were no longer applicable as the Indian legislature had made a conscious decision to take away the power of courts to examine all other aspects, except the existence of the arbitration agreement under Section 11. Moreover, as GRL had not denied that a valid arbitration agreement existed in the Agreement, the Bombay HC must go ahead and appoint an arbitrator to resolve the dispute.