(a)(vi) of the DCA read with the corresponding Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. Prior to filing of the complaint, the drugs
alleged to have been sold incorrectly by the respective branch were seized by the Drugs Inspector with the permission
of the Court on June 27, 2016, against which Optical filed a response on June 27, 2016 and supporting statements were
made before the Assistant Drug Controller on June 28, 2016 by the representatives of the Optival. The reply and the
statements were found unsatisfactory by the Drugs Inspector leading to initiation of the complaint process. Aggrieved
with the initiation of the said complaint, Optival, the directors of Optival, the deputy general manager and sales
supervisor of the Kengeri branch, Bangalore have filed a petition under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
on October 24, 2016 before the High Court of Karnataka, among others, praying to quash the aforesaid complaint.
Simultaneous miscellaneous application for staying the complaint proceedings was also made by Optival, the directors
of Optival, the deputy general manager and sales supervisor of the Kengeri branch, Bangalore. The Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka by way of order dated October 24, 2016 has been pleased to stay the complaint proceedings against
the directors of Optival. The matter is currently pending.

The Drug Inspector Kanchipuram II Range, Tamil Nadu filed a complaint against Optival, the directors of Optival,
and general manager of the Kovur branch, Chennai before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu (“CJM”)
wherein the Drug Inspector alleged, among others, that (i) stock transfer bills of the respective branch were incomplete
and unsigned; (ii) that certain products were stocked in the outlet without valid purchase invoices; and that all such
actions are in contravention of the Section 18 (c) of the DCA read with the corresponding Drugs and Cosmetics Rules.
Prior to the filing of the complaint, a show-cause notice was issued to Optival on May 25, 2015 against which Optival
submitted responses on June 2, 2015 and July 20, 2015. The reply was found unsatisfactory by the Drugs Inspector
leading to initiation of the complaint process. Against initiation of such proceedings, Optival, the directors of Optival,
and general manager of the Kovur branch, Chennai have filed a petition under section 482, Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 before the High Court of Madras on August 24, 2017, contending that appropriate responses for
contravention of the DCA have been provided and there was no grievous loss caused to the state and among others
praying to quash the aforesaid complaint. Simultaneous miscellaneous applications for staying the complaint
proceedings and dispensing with the personal attendance of the directors under section 205, Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 respectively were also moved by them. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras by way of order dated
January 11, 2018 was pleased to stay the complaint proceedings. The matter is currently pending.

The Drugs Control Department, State of Tamil Nadu (“Department”) filed a complaint against Ritemed, the directors
of Ritemed, and the manager of the New Washeremempet branch, Chennai before the Court of XV Metropolitan
Magistrate, Georgetown, Chennai (“Metropolitan Magistrate”) wherein the Department alleged, among others, that (i)
sales in respect of certain drugs were made without the presence of a registered pharmacist at the sale outlet, (ii) that
few entries in the prescription register corresponding to certain sales were not signed by the registered pharmacist, (iii)
that relevant entries corresponding to certain days were not made in the prescription register and that all such actions
are in contravention of the Section 18 (c) and 27 (d) of the DCA read with the corresponding Drugs and Cosmetics
Rules. Prior to the filing of the complaint, a show-cause notice was issued to the New Washeremempet branch on
February 9, 2015. A response was submitted by Ritemed, on behalf of M/s MedPlus Pharmacy on March 3, 2015. The
reply was found unsatisfactory by the Department leading to initiation of the complaint process. After due hearing in
the complaint, the Metropolitan Magistrate by way of judgment and order dated December 19, 2016 acquitted Ritemed,
the directors of Ritemed, and the manager of the New Washeremempet branch, Chennai. Aggrieved with the said
acquittal order, the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, preferred an appeal on contending that, among others,
the (i) acquittal was against law and weight of evidence; (ii) that several license conditions were breached; (iii) that
the directors had not proven that they were not involved in day to day activities, etc. The matter is currently pending.

Drug Inspector, Mettupalayam Range, Office of the Assistant Director of Drugs Control, CBE Zone filed a complaint
against Optival, the directors of Optival and person-in-charge of the Annur branch, Coimbatore before the Judicial
Magistrate Court, Mettupalayam, (“Judicial Magistrate”) wherein the Drug Inspector alleged, among others, that (i)
sales in respect of certain drugs were made without the presence of a registered pharmacist at the sale outlet; (ii) that
prescription registers were improperly maintained; (iii) that Optival, the directors of Optival and person-in-charge of
the Annur branch, Coimbatore had failed to report changes in the list of qualified sales persons; (iv) certain sales were
made without raising appropriate corresponding memo and that all such actions are in contravention of Section 18(c)
of the DCA read with the corresponding Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. Prior to filing of the complaint, a show-cause
notice dated March 18, 2015 was issued to Optival, against which Optival had submitted its reply dated April 7, 2016.
The reply was found unsatisfactory by the Drugs Inspector leading to initiation of the complaint process. Accordingly,
the summons were issued to Optival, the directors of Optival and person-in-charge of the Annur branch, Coimbatore
on May 19, 2017. Against initiation of such proceedings, Optival and the directors of M/s MedPlus Pharmacy have
filed a petition under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the High Court of Madras on November
24, 2017, among others praying to quash the aforesaid complaint. Simultaneous miscellaneous applications for staying
the complaint proceedings 2016 and dispensing with the mandatory personal attendance of the directors of Optival
under section 205, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 respectively were also moved by Optival, the directors of Optival
and person-in-charge of the Annur branch, Coimbatore. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras by way of order dated
January 24, 2018 was pleased to stay the complaint proceedings and dispense with the personal attendance of the
directors of Optival. The matter is currently pending.

The Drug Inspector, Mettupalayam Range, Office of the Asst. Director of Drugs Control, CBE Zone (“Drug
Inspector”) filed a complaint dated September 11, 2017 against Optival, director of Optival and person-in-charge of

307
