Application”), since GIPL did not receive a response from the RBI for the letter dated June 3, 2020. The Compounding
Application was returned by RBI on August 26, 2021 due to (a) non-inclusion of the following contraventions: (i) delay in
reporting inward remittance, (ii) delay in filing of Form A of FC-GPR and Form B of FC-GPR for FYs 2006-07 to 2009- 10,
(iii) for taking on record transfer of shares by investee company without prior approval, (iv) delay in filing of FLA returns for
FYs 2010- 11 to 2016-17, (v) delay in filing of FLA returns for FY 2017-18 & 2018-19, and (vi) delay in filing of FLA returns
for FY 2019-20 and FY 2020-21; (b) the following errors and omissions: (i) incorrect date of date of receipt for remittance of
Rs. 31,90,439, (ii) non incorporation of the details of taking on record transfer of shares in a separate table as per the provided
format therein, and, (iii) non-inclusion of the details of filing FLA returns for the FYs 2012-13 to 2020- 21 in a separate table,
as per the provided format; (c) copy of PAN card not furnished; (d) dated undertaking as per the prescribed format not furnished;
and (e) a copy of certificate of incorporation not submitted. The Company is in the process of revising the compounding
application. The matter is currently pending.

Litigation by our Company

Material Civil Litigation

Nil

Criminal Litigation

Nil

Litigation involving our Subsidiaries
Litigation against our Subsidiaries
Material Civil Litigation

Nil

However, certain and separate individuals have filed six complaints against Optival before various consumer forums that fall
under the materiality threshold, among others, alleging (i) deficiency of services and unfair trade practice on account of selling
spoiled/expired tablets; (ii) charging from customers amounts over and above the tax inclusive price in respect of certain
products, etc. These matters are currently pending at different stages of adjudication. The Company has been impleaded as a
party to one of the six complaints.

Criminal Litigation
Nil
Actions Taken by Regulatory and Statutory Authorities

Except as mentioned below, as of the date of this Prospectus, there are no pending actions by regulatory and statutory authorities
against our Subsidiaries.

Optival

Pursuant to the Scheme of Amalgamation, the business undertaking of Ritemed comprising of its retail trading of medicines
and general items business together with inter-alia, all the assets, liabilities, rights, title, interest, obligations, risks and rewards
relating to and arising out of the business undertaking was transferred to Optival as on April 1, 2016 (“Appointed Date”). All
legal proceedings in relation to the said business undertaking, pending as on the Appointed Date or in respect of which, the
cause of action had arisen on or prior to the Appointed Date, shall be managed by Optival and that all claims, liabilities,
obligations etc., arising out of such legal proceedings shall be borne by Optival.

L. The Drugs Inspector, Nagpur filed a complaint dated June 8, 2010 against Optival, the directors of Optival and the
supervisor of the Sabhagruha branch, Nagpur before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur,
wherein the Drug Inspector alleged, among others, that (i) Optival’s office at Laxminagar, Nagpur was used for storage
of drugs without obtaining the requisite license; (ii) certain non-standard quality drugs were stored in the unlicensed
premises, and (iii) the Mankapur branch license had been previously suspended and a fresh license had not been
obtained and that all such actions are in contravention of sections 18 (a) (1) and 18 (c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics
Act, 1940 (“DCA”) read with the relevant corresponding rules under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (“Drugs
and Cosmetics Rules”). An order of issue process dated June 8, 2010 was passed against Optival, the directors of
Optival and the supervisor of the Sabhagruha branch, Nagpur by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur.
(“Order”). Aggrieved with the Order, Optival, the directors of Optival and the supervisor of the branch have preferred
a criminal revision petition dated October 7, 2020 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge — 8, Nagpur, praying,
among others, that the Order be set aside. The Additional Sessions Judge — 8 by way of an order dated February 2,
2021, has set aside the Order as not applicable in respect of the Optival’s ex director P. Srinivas and current director

305
