SECTION VI: LEGAL AND OTHER INFORMATION

OUTSTANDING LITIGATION AND MATERIAL DEVELOPMENTS

Except as stated below, there are no outstanding (i) criminal proceedings, (ii) actions taken by statutory or
regulatory authorities, (iii) claims related to direct and indirect tax (in a consolidated manner) and (iv) material
litigation, in each case, involving our Company, our Subsidiaries, our Promoters and our Directors
(collectively, the “Relevant Parties”). Further, there are no disciplinary actions including penalty imposed by
the SEBI or the Stock Exchanges against our Promoters in the last five Financial Years including any
outstanding action and there are no outstanding litigation proceedings involving any of our Group Companies
that have a material impact on our Company.

In relation to (iv) above, our Board in its meeting held on August 6, 2021, has considered and adopted a policy
of materiality for identification of material civil litigation (“Materiality Policy”). In terms of the Materiality
Policy, any outstanding litigation involving the Relevant Parties which exceeds the amount which is 1% of the
profit after tax as per the Restated Consolidated Financial Information for the Financial Year 2021 would be
considered material for our Company. For the Financial Year 2021, our profit for the year as per the Restated
Consolidated Financial Information was %547.92 million. Accordingly, the following types of litigation
involving the Relevant Parties have been considered material, and accordingly disclosed, as applicable, (a) the
monetary amount of claim by or against the entity or person in any such pending proceeding is in excess of
%5.48 million (“Materiality Amount”); (b) where the monetary liability is not quantifiable, but where the
outcome of such legal proceedings may have a material bearing on the business, operations, performance,
prospects or reputation of our Company; or (c) the decision in one litigation is likely to affect the decision in
similar litigation, even though the amount involved in an individual litigation may not exceed the Materiality
Amount.

It is clarified that for the purposes of the above, pre-litigation notices received by the Relevant Parties from
third parties (excluding notices from statutory, regulatory or tax authorities or notices threatening criminal
action) shall not be evaluated for materiality until the Relevant Parties are impleaded as defendants in
proceedings before any judicial forum.

Except as stated in this section, there are no outstanding material dues to creditors of our Company. For this
purpose, our Board has, pursuant to the Board resolution dated August 6, 2021, considered and adopted a
policy of materiality for identification of material outstanding dues to creditors (“Creditors’ Materiality
Policy”). In terms of this materiality policy, outstanding dues to any creditor of our Company having monetary
value exceeding %195.53 million, which is 5% of the total trade payables of our Company as on August 31,
2021, as per the Restated Consolidated Financial Information included in this Prospectus, shall be considered
as ‘material’. Accordingly, as on August 31, 2021, any outstanding dues exceeding €195.53 million have been
considered as material outstanding dues for the purpose of disclosure in this section. Further, for outstanding
dues to any party which is a micro, small or medium enterprise (“MSME”), the disclosure will be based on
information available with the Company regarding status of the creditor as defined under Section 2 of the
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, as amended.

A. Litigation involving our Company

L Litigation against our Company
(a) Criminal Proceedings
1. Loyalty HR Benefits Private Limited (through Mr. Ameerul Hasan Siddiqui) has filed a criminal

complaint under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of IPC, Sections 63 and 63B of the Copyright Act, 1957
and the Copyright Rules, 1958 and Sections 16, 51 and 107 read with Section 96 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 61st Court at Kurla, Mumbai
(“Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla”) alleging that our Company had violated the complainant’s
intellectual property rights in respect of the development of a particular software. The Metropolitan
Magistrate, Kurla ordered the Antop Hill Police Station (the “Police Station”) to investigate the
offences alleged in such criminal complaint. Subsequently, the Police Station filed an investigation
report before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla on November 18, 2015 stating that no offence could
be made out in such criminal complaint. In response to a protest petition filed by the complainant, the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla redirected the Police Station to re-investigate such matter. The Police

358
