10.

11,

12.

13.

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,
director 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 memos 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 November 23, 2016 was issued to Optival, against which
Optival had submitted its reply dated December 30, 2016. The reply was found unsatisfactory by the Drugs Inspector
leading to initiation of the complaint process. Aggrieved with initiation of the Complaint, Optival, the directors of
Optival and the person-in-charge of the Annur branch, Coimbatore have filed a petition under section 482, Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the High Court of Madras, among others praying to quash the aforesaid complaint.
Simultaneous miscellaneous applications for staying the complaint proceedings and dispensing with the personal
attendance of the representative and whole-time director of Optival under section 205, Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 respectively were also moved by them. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras by way of an order dated August 28,
2019 has been pleased to dispense with the personal attendance of the directors of Optival and additionally, directed
the presiding Judicial Magistrate to dispose of the complaint proceedings within three months from receipt of the said
order from the High Court. The matter is currently pending.

The Drugs Control Department, State of Tamil Nadu (“Department”) filed a complaint dated January 31, 2007 against
Ritemed, directors of Ritemed, manager and the store employees of the Virugambakkam branch, Chennai before the
IV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai (“Metropolitan Magistrate”) wherein the Department alleged,
among others, that (i) Ritemed, directors of Ritemed, manager and the store employees of the Virugambakkam branch,
Chennai had not maintained the prescription registers as is otherwise mandatorily required as a condition of the license
and (ii) the concerned store/outlet had dispensed certain medicines without the presence of a registered pharmacist at
the store/outlet at the time of such dispensation in contravention of conditions of the license prescribed in Rule 65,
Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. Prior to filing of the complaint, a show-cause notice dated November 25, 2013 was issued
to Optival, against which Optival had submitted its reply dated February 10, 2015. The reply was found unsatisfactory
by the Drugs Inspector leading to initiation of the complaint process. After due hearing in the matter, Ritemed, directors
of Ritemed, manager and the store employees of the Virugambakkam branch, Chennai were acquitted by way of
judgment and order dated April 13, 2017 passed by the presiding Metropolitan Magistrate. Aggrieved with the acquittal
judgment and order dated April 13, 2017, the Department has preferred an appeal, on March 26, 2018 before the III
Additional Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Chennai. The matter is currently pending.

The Drug Inspector, Avadi Range, Office of Assistant Director of Drugs Control, Thiruvallur Zone had filed a
complaint against Ritemed, director of Ritemed and assistant manager of the MedPlus Pharmacy, Thirumullaivoyil
branch, Chennai before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur (“Chief Judicial Magistrate”), wherein
the concerned Drug Inspector alleged, among others, that (i) the MedPlus Pharmacy, Thirumullaivoyil branch had sold
a particular drug at the old maximum retail price, thereby overcharging for the drug, and (ii) that the branch had not
displayed the current price list at the respective branch and that all such actions are in contravention of Section 3 of
the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Para 25 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 2013. Prior to filing of the
complaint, a show-cause notice dated August 16, 2017 was issued to Optival, against which Optival had submitted its
reply dated October 27, 2017. The reply was found unsatisfactory by the Drugs Inspector leading to initiation of the
Complaint. Against initiation of such proceedings, Ritemed, director of Ritemed and assistant manager of the MedPlus
Pharmacy, Thirumullaivoyil branch, Chennai have filed a petition under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 before the High Court of Madras, among others praying to quash the aforesaid complaint. Simultaneous
miscellaneous applications for staying the complaint proceedings and dispensing with the personal attendance of the
representative and director of Ritemed under section 205, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 respectively were also
moved by them. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras, Chennai by way of order dated July 8, 2019 has been pleased to
allow both miscellaneous applications and has been pleased to grant a stay on the complaint proceedings and dispense
with the personal attendance of the representative and director of Ritemed. The matter is currently pending.

The Assistant Drug Controller, Bangalore (“ADC Banglore”) had filed a complaint dated March 21, 2019 against
Ritemed, directors of Ritemed and the in-charge official of the MedPlus Pharmacy, Padmanabhanagar branch,
Bangalore before the 3 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, wherein the ADC Bangalore alleged,
among others, that Ritemed had billed the customer for eight tablets whereas actually only seven tablets were provided
and thus, had collected Rs. 1.12 in excess. The collection of the said excess amount, in the opinion of ADC Bangalore,
is in contravention of Para 26 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 2013 read with Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955. The complaint has been filed pursuant to the show-cause notice issued to Ritemed on
September 14, 2016 and Ritemed’s responses dated October 7, 2016 and DMPL’s response dated November 11, 2016
to the said notice. The matter is currently pending.

The Food Security Officer, on behalf of the Government of Tamil Nadu, had filed a complaint against MHSPPL,
directors of MHSPPL, MedPlus Pharmacy (unit of Optival), Tiruchengode branch, Namakkal district, and directors of
MedPlus Pharmacy, before the Criminal Arbitration Court-IV, Tiruchengode, wherein the Food Security Officer
alleged that the sample of jaggery sold at the branch was found to be unsafe and of poor quality, and was in
contravention of Section 51, 59 (i) and 63 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Summons dated February 26,

308
