52.

53.

54,

55.

It may not be possible for you to enforce any judgment obtained outside India against us, our management or any
of our respective affiliates in India, except by way of a suit in India on such judgment.

The Issuer is incorporated under the laws of India. All of our assets are located in India and a majority of our Directors and
Key Management Personnel are residents of India. As a result, it may not be possible for investors to effect service of
process upon the Issuer or such persons in jurisdictions outside India, or to enforce against judgments obtained in courts
outside India. Moreover, it is unlikely that a court in India would award damages on the same basis as a foreign court if an
action were brought in India or that an Indian court would enforce foreign judgments if it viewed the amount of damages
as excessive or inconsistent with Indian public policy.

India has reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters with a limited number of
jurisdictions, which includes, the United Kingdom, Singapore, UAE and Hong Kong. A judgment from certain specified
courts located in a jurisdiction with reciprocity must meet certain requirements of the Civil Code. The United States and
India do not currently have a treaty providing for reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and
commercial matters. Therefore, a final judgment for the payment of money rendered by any federal or state court in a non-
reciprocating territory, such as the United States, for civil liability, whether or not predicated solely upon the general
securities laws of the United States, would not be enforceable in India under the Civil Code as a decree of an Indian court.

The United Kingdom, Singapore, UAE and Hong Kong have been declared by the Government of India to be reciprocating
territories for purposes of Section 44A of the Civil Code. A judgment of a court of a country which is not a reciprocating
territory may be enforced in India only by a suit on the judgment under Section 13 of the Civil Code, and not by proceedings
in execution. Section 13 of the Civil Code provides that foreign judgments shall be conclusive regarding any matter directly
adjudicated on except (i) where the judgment has not been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction, (ii) where the
judgment has not been given on the merits of the case, (iii) where it appears on the face of the proceedings that the judgment
is founded on an incorrect view of international law or refusal to recognize the law of India in cases to which such law is
applicable, (iv) where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained were opposed to natural justice, (v) where the
judgment has been obtained by fraud or (vi) where the judgment sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law then in
force in India. Under the Civil Code, a court in India shall, on the production of any document purporting to be a certified
copy of a foreign judgment, presume that the judgment was pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction, unless the
contrary appears on record. The Civil Code only permits the enforcement of monetary decrees, not being in the nature of
any amounts payable in respect of taxes, other charges, fines or penalties. Judgments or decrees from jurisdictions which
do not have reciprocal recognition with India cannot be enforced by proceedings in execution in India. Therefore, a final
judgment for the payment of money rendered by any court in a non-reciprocating territory for civil liability, whether or not
predicated solely upon the general laws of the non-reciprocating territory, would not be enforceable in India. Even if an
investor obtained a judgment in such a jurisdiction against us, our officers or Directors, it may be required to institute a
new proceeding in India and obtain a decree from an Indian court.

However, the party in whose favour such final judgment is rendered may bring a new suit in a competent court in India
based on a final judgment that has been obtained in the United States or other such jurisdiction within three years of
obtaining such final judgment. It is unlikely that an Indian court would award damages on the same basis as a foreign court
if an action is brought in India. Moreover, it is unlikely that an Indian court would award damages to the extent awarded
in a final judgment rendered outside India if it believes that the amount of damages awarded were excessive or inconsistent
with Indian practice. In addition, any person seeking to enforce a foreign judgment in India is required to obtain the prior
approval of the RBI to repatriate any amount recovered.

Significant differences exist between Ind AS and other accounting principles, such as US GAAP and IFRS, which
may be material to investors’ assessments of our financial condition.

The financial statements included in this Prospectus have been prepared in accordance with Ind AS. We have not attempted
to quantify the impact of US GAAP or IFRS on the financial data included in this Prospectus, nor do we provide a
reconciliation of our financial statements to those of US GAAP or IFRS. US GAAP and IFRS differ in significant respects
from Ind AS. Accordingly, the degree to which the Ind AS financial statements, which are restated as per the SEBI ICDR
Regulations included in this Prospectus, will provide meaningful information is entirely dependent on the reader’s level of
familiarity with Indian accounting practices. Any reliance by persons not familiar with Indian accounting practices on the
financial disclosures presented in this Prospectus should be limited accordingly.

Rights of shareholders under Indian laws may differ from those under the laws of other jurisdictions.

Indian legal principles related to corporate procedures, directors’ fiduciary duties and liabilities, and shareholders’ rights
may differ from those that would apply to a company in another jurisdiction. Shareholders’ rights including in relation to
class actions, under Indian law may not be similar to the shareholders’ rights under the laws of other countries or
jurisdictions. Investors may have more difficulty in asserting their rights as a shareholder in an Indian company, such as
the Issuer, than as a shareholder of a corporation in another jurisdiction.

We may be affected by competition law in India and any adverse application or interpretation of the Competition
Act could adversely affect our business.

52
