Contingencies | 39. Contingencies The Company is involved in disputes, lawsuits, claims, governmental and/or regulatory inspections, inquiries, investigations and proceedings, including patent and commercial matters that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of business. The more significant matters are discussed below. Most of the claims involve complex issues. Often, these issues are subject to uncertainties and therefore the probability of a loss, if any, being sustained and an estimate of the amount of any loss is difficult to ascertain. Consequently, for a majority of these claims, it is not possible to make a reasonable estimate of the expected financial effect, if any, that will result from ultimate resolution of the proceedings. This is due to a number of factors, including: the stage of the proceedings (in many cases trial dates have not been set) and the overall length and extent of pre-trial discovery; the entitlement of the parties to an action to appeal a decision; clarity as to theories of liability; damages and governing law; uncertainties in timing of litigation; and the possible need for further legal proceedings to establish the appropriate amount of damages, if any. In these cases, the Company discloses information with respect to the nature and facts of the case. The Company also believes that disclosure of the amount sought by plaintiffs, if that is known, would not be meaningful with respect to those legal proceedings. Although there can be no assurance regarding the outcome of any of the legal proceedings or investigations referred to in this Note, the Company does not expect them to have a materially adverse effect on its financial position, as it believes that the likelihood of loss in excess of amounts accrued (if any) is not probable. However, if one or more of such proceedings were to result in judgments against the Company, such judgments could be material to its results of operations in a given period. Product and patent related matters Matters relating to National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority Norfloxacin, India litigation The Company manufactures and distributes Norfloxacin, a formulations product, and in limited quantities, the active pharmaceutical ingredient norfloxacin. Under the Drugs Prices Control Order (the “DPCO”), the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (the “NPPA”) established by the Government of India had the authority to designate a pharmaceutical product as a “specified product” and fix the maximum selling price for such product. In 1995, the NPPA issued a notification and designated Norfloxacin as a “specified product” and fixed the maximum selling price. In 1996, the Company filed a statutory Form III before the NPPA for the upward revision of the maximum selling price and a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court (the “High Court”) challenging the validity of the designation on the grounds that the applicable rules of the DPCO were not complied with while fixing the maximum selling price. The High Court had previously granted an interim order in favor of the Company; however it subsequently dismissed the case in April 2004. The Company filed a review petition in the High Court in April 2004 which was also dismissed by the High Court in October 2004. Subsequently, the Company appealed to the Supreme Court of India, New Delhi (the “Supreme Court”) by filing a Special Leave Petition. During the year ended March 31, 2006, the Company received a notice from the NPPA demanding the recovery of the price charged by the Company for sales of Norfloxacin in excess of the maximum selling price fixed by the NPPA, which was Rs.285 including interest. The Company filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging this demand order. The High Court admitted the writ petition and granted an interim order, directing the Company to deposit 50% of the principal amount claimed by the NPPA, which was Rs.77. The Company deposited this amount with the NPPA in November 2005. In February 2008, the High Court directed the Company to deposit an additional amount of Rs.30, which was deposited by the Company in March 2008. In November 2010, the High Court allowed the Company’s application to include additional legal grounds that the Company believed strengthened its defense against the demand. For example, the Company added as grounds that trade margins should not be included in the computation of amounts overcharged, and that it was necessary for the NPPA to set the active pharmaceutical ingredient price before the process of determining the ceiling on the formulation price. In October 2013, the Company filed an additional writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging the inclusion of Norfloxacin as a “specified product” under the DPCO. In January 2015, the NPPA filed a counter affidavit stating that the inclusion of Norfloxacin was based upon the recommendation of a committee consisting of experts in the field. On July 20, 2016, the Supreme Court remanded the matters concerning the inclusion of Norfloxacin as a “specified product” under the DPCO back to the High Court for further proceedings. During the three months ended September 30, 2016, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition pertaining to the fixing of prices for Norfloxacin formulations. During the three months ended December 31, 2016, a writ petition pertaining to Norfloxacin was filed by the Company with the Delhi High Court. Upon the request of the respondents to file a counter, the Delhi High Court has adjourned the matter to November 26, 2018. Based on its best estimate, the Company has recorded a provision for potential liability for sale proceeds in excess of the notified selling prices, including the interest thereon, and believes that the likelihood of any further liability that may arise on account of penalties pursuant to this litigation is not probable. Litigation relating to Cardiovascular and Anti-diabetic formulations In July 2014, the NPPA, pursuant to the guidelines issued in May 2014 and the powers granted by the Government of India under the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 2013, issued certain notifications regulating the prices for 108 formulations in the cardiovascular and antidiabetic therapeutic areas. The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (“IPA”), in which the Company is a member, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the notifications issued by the NPPA on the grounds that they were ultra vires, ex facie and ab initio void. The Bombay High Court issued an order to stay the writ in July 2014. On September 26, 2016, the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the IPA and upheld the validity of the notifications/orders passed by the NPPA in July 2014. Further, on October 25, 2016, the IPA filed a Special Leave Petition with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court. During the three months ended December 31, 2016, the NPPA issued show-cause notices relating to allegations that the Company exceeded the notified maximum prices for 11 of its products. The Company has responded to these notices. On March 20, 2017, the IPA filed an application before the Bombay High Court for the recall of the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated September 26, 2016. This recall application filed by the IPA was dismissed by the Bombay High Court on October 4, 2017. Further, on December 13, 2017, the IPA filed a Special Leave Petition with the Supreme Court for the recall of the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated October 4, 2017, which was dismissed by Supreme Court on January 10, 2018. During the three months ended March 31, 2017, the NPPA issued notices to the Company demanding payments relating to the foregoing products for the allegedly overcharged amounts, along with interest. On July 13, 2017, in response to a writ petition which the Company had filed, the Delhi High Court set aside all the demand notices of the NPPA and directed the NPPA to provide a personal hearing to the Company and pass a speaking order. A personal hearing in this regard was held on July 21, 2017. On July 27, 2017, the NPPA passed a speaking order along with the demand notice directing the Company to pay an amount of Rs.776. On August 3, 2017, the Company filed a writ petition challenging the speaking order and the demand notice. Upon hearing the matter on August 8, 2017, the Delhi High Court stayed the operation of the demand order and directed the Company to deposit Rs.100 and furnish a bank guarantee for Rs.676. Pursuant to the order, the Company deposited Rs.100 on September 13, 2017 and submitted a bank guarantee of Rs.676 dated September 15, 2017 to the Registrar General, Delhi High Court. On November 22, 2017, the Delhi High Court directed the Union of India to file a final counter affidavit within six weeks, subsequent to which the Company could file a rejoinder. On May 10, 2018, the counter affidavit was filed by the Union of India. The Company subsequently filed a rejoinder and both were taken on record by the Delhi High Court. The matter has been adjourned to August 8, 2018 for hearing. Based on its best estimate, the Company has recorded a provision of Rs.416 under “Selling, general and administrative expenses” as a potential liability for sale proceeds in excess of the notified selling prices, including the interest thereon, and believes that the likelihood of any further liability that may arise on account of penalties pursuant to this litigation is not probable. However, if the Company is unsuccessful in such litigation, it will be required to remit the sale proceeds in excess of the notified selling prices to the Government of India with interest and could potentially include penalties, which amounts are not readily ascertainable. Other product and patent related matters Nexium United States litigations Five federal antitrust class action lawsuits were brought on behalf of direct purchasers of Nexium®, and ten federal class action lawsuits were brought under both state and federal law on behalf of end-payors of Nexium®. These actions were filed against various generic manufacturers, including the Company and its U.S. subsidiary Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc. These actions were consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaints alleged that AstraZeneca and the involved generic manufacturers settled patent litigation related to Nexium® capsules in a manner that violated antitrust laws. The Company consistently maintained that its conduct complied with all applicable laws and that the complaints were without merit. In response to a motion for summary judgment made by the Company, the Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the Company’s settlement of patent litigation with AstraZeneca included any large or unjustified reverse payment, but preserving other claims for trial. On October 20, 2014, the Company reached a settlement with all plaintiffs who had cases pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The settlement with the class plaintiffs was subject to the Court’s approval. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company made no payment to the class plaintiffs. Other defendants went to trial and prevailed. The Court granted preliminary approval of the Company’s settlements with the class plaintiffs on January 28, 2015, and granted final approval of such settlements on September 29, 2015. On November 21, 2016, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment that had been entered in favor of the defendants who tried the case to a verdict. On January 10, 2017, the First Circuit Court of Appeals denied the motions for reconsideration. In addition, two complaints, similar in nature to those referenced above, were filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania by plaintiffs who chose to opt out of the class action lawsuit. No dispositive motions have been filed in these actions. The Company believes that the likelihood of any liability that may arise on account of lawsuits of the plaintiffs who opted out of the class action is not probable. Accordingly, no provision has been made in these consolidated financial statements. Child resistant packaging matter In May 2012, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (the “CPSC”) requested that Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company in the United States, provide certain information with respect to compliance with requirements of special packaging for child resistant blister packs for 6 products sold by the Company in the United States during the period commencing in 2002 through 2011. The Company provided the requested information. The CPSC subsequently alleged in a letter dated April 30, 2014 that the Company had violated the Consumer Product Safety Act (the “CPSA”) and the Poison Prevention Packaging Act (the “PPPA”) and that the CPSC intended to seek civil penalties. Specifically, the CPSC asserted, among other things, that from or about August 14, 2008 through June 1, 2012, the Company sold prescription drugs having unit dose packaging that failed to comply with the CPSC's special child resistant packaging regulations under the PPPA and failed to issue general certificates of conformance. In addition, the CPSC asserted that the Company violated the CPSA by failing to immediately advise the CPSC of the alleged violations. The Company disagrees with the CPSC’s allegations. Simultaneously, the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) began to investigate a sealed complaint which was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the Federal False Claims Act (“FCA”) related to these same issues (the “FCA Complaint”). The Company cooperated with the DOJ in its investigation. The DOJ and all States involved in the investigation declined to intervene in the FCA Complaint. On November 10, 2015, the FCA Complaint was unsealed and the plaintiff whistleblowers, who are two former employees of the Company, proceeded without the DOJ’s and applicable States’ involvement. The unsealed FCA Complaint relates to the 6 blister pack products originally subject to the investigation and also 38 of the Company’s generic prescription products sold in the U.S. in various bottle and cap packaging. The Company filed its response to the FCA Complaint on February 23, 2016 in the form of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On March 26, 2017, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss, dismissing the FCA Complaint and allowing the plaintiffs one more chance to refile this complaint in an attempt to plead sustainable allegations. On March 29, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their final amended FCA Complaint, which the Company opposed and during the three months ended March 31, 2018, the Company obtained dismissal of the FCA Complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a petition with the Court requesting that the Court reconsider its decision to dismiss the FCA Complaint with prejudice, and that request was denied. The parallel investigation by the CPSC under the CPSA and the PPPA was referred by the CPSC to the DOJ’s office in Washington, D.C. in April 2016, with the recommendation that the DOJ initiate a civil penalty action against the Company. The CPSC matter referred to the DOJ relates to five of the blister pack products. On January 18, 2018, the Company and the DOJ entered into a settlement of the action and agreed to a consent decree providing for a civil penalty of U.S.$5 (Rs.319), and injunctive relief. The settlement was without adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and the Company has not admitted any violations of law pursuant to this settlement. Namenda United States Litigations In August 2015, Sergeants Benevolent Assoc. Health &; Welfare Fund (“Sergeants”) filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Sergeants alleged that certain parties, including the Company, violated federal antitrust laws as a consequence of having settled patent litigation related to the Alzheimer’s drug Namenda® (memantine) tablets during a period from about 2009 until 2010. Sergeants seeks to represent a class of “end-payor” purchasers of Namenda® tablets (i.e., insurers, other third-party payors and consumers). Sergeants seeks damages based upon an allegation made in the complaint that the defendants entered into patent settlements regarding Namenda® tablets for the purpose of delaying generic competition and facilitating the brand innovator’s attempt to shift sales from the original immediate release product to the more recently introduced extended release product. The Company believes that the complaint lacks merit and that the Company’s conduct complied with all applicable laws and regulations. All defendants, including the Company, moved to dismiss the claims. On September 13, 2016, the Court denied these motions. However, the Sergeants case is stayed pending resolution of similar claims in another case in which the Company is not a party ( JM Smith Corp. v. Actavis PLC JM Smith Four other class action complaints, each containing similar allegations to the Sergeants complaint, have also been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. However, two of those complaints were voluntarily dismissed, and the other two do not name the Company as a defendant. In addition, the State of New York filed an antitrust case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case brought by the State of New York contained some (but not all) of the allegations set forth in the class action complaints, but the Company was not named as a party. The case brought by the State of New York was dismissed by stipulation on November 30, 2015. The Company believes that the likelihood of any liability that may arise on account of alleged violation of federal antitrust laws is not probable. Accordingly, no provision has been made in these consolidated financial statements. Class Action and Other Civil Litigation on Pricing/Reimbursement Matters On December 30, 2015 and on February 4, 2016, respectively, a class action complaint (the “First Pricing Complaint”) and another complaint (not a class action) (the “Second Pricing Complaint”) were filed against the Company and eighteen other pharmaceutical defendants in State Court in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In these actions, the class action plaintiffs allege that the Company and other defendants, individually or in some cases in concert with one another, have engaged in pricing and price reporting practices in violation of various Pennsylvania state laws. More specifically, the plaintiffs allege that: (1) the Company provided false and misleading pricing information to third party drug compendia companies for the Company’s generic drugs, and such information was relied upon by private third party payers that reimbursed for drugs sold by the Company in the United States, and (2) the Company acted in concert with certain other defendants to unfairly raise the prices of generic divalproex sodium ER (bottle of 80, 500 mg tablets ER 24H) and generic pravastatin sodium (bottle of 500, 10 mg tablets). The First Pricing Complaint was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the “E.D.P.A. Federal Court”) and, pending the outcome of the First Pricing Complaint, the Second Pricing Complaint was stayed. On September 25, 2017, the E.D.P.A. Federal Court dismissed all the claims of the plaintiffs in the First Pricing Complaint and denied leave to amend such complaint as futile. Subsequent to this decision, the plaintiffs right to appeal the dismissal of the First Pricing Complaint expired. Further, on November 17, 2016, certain class action complaints were filed against the Company and a number of other pharmaceutical companies as defendants in the E.D.P.A. Federal Court. Subsequently, these complaints were consolidated into one amended complaint as part of a multi-district, multi-product litigation pending with the E.D.P.A. Federal Court. These complaints allege that the Company and the other named defendants have engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices and to allocate bids and customers in the sale of pravastatin sodium tablets and divalproex sodium extended-release tablets in the United States. In March 2017, plaintiffs agreed by stipulation to dismiss Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited from the actions related to pravastatin sodium tablets without prejudice. The Company denies any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend against these allegations. The Company believes that the likelihood of any liability that may arise on account of any of these complaints is not probable. Accordingly, no provision has been made in these consolidated financial statements. Civil litigation with Mezzion On January 13, 2017, Mezzion Pharma Co. Ltd. and Mezzion International LLC (collectively, “Mezzion”) filed a complaint in the New Jersey Superior Court against the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary in the United States. The complaint pertains to the production and supply of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) for udenafil (a patented compound) and an udenafil finished dosage product during a period from calendar years 2007 to 2015. Mezzion alleges that the Company failed to comply with the U.S. FDA’s current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”) at the time of manufacture of the API and finished dosage forms of udenafil and, consequently, that this resulted in a delay in the filing of a NDA for the product by Mezzion. In this regard, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Mezzion’s complaint on the technical grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Company. In January 2018, the Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the jurisdictional matter. Company’s interlocutory appeal of the said denial, was also denied. The Company denies any wrongdoing or liability in this regard, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in Mezzion’s complaint. Any liability that may arise on account of this complaint is unascertainable. Accordingly, no provision was made in the consolidated financial statements of the Company. Shareholder Class Action Litigation On August 25, 2017, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Company’s Co-Chairman, its Chief Operating Officer, and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc., were also subsequently named as defendants in the case. The operative complaint alleges that the Company made false or misleading statements or omissions in its public filings, in violation of U.S. federal securities laws, and that the Company’s share price dropped and its investors were affected. On May 9, 2018, the Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Company believes that the asserted claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations. Any liability that may arise on account of this complaint is unascertainable. Accordingly, no provision was made in the consolidated financial statements of the Company. Environmental matters Land pollution The Indian Council for Environmental Legal Action filed a writ in 1989 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India against the Union of India and others in the Supreme Court of India for the safety of people living in the Patancheru and Bollarum areas of Medak district of the then existing undivided state of Andhra Pradesh. The Company has been named in the list of polluting industries. In 1996, the Andhra Pradesh District Judge proposed that the polluting industries compensate farmers in the Patancheru, Bollarum and Jeedimetla areas for discharging effluents which damaged the farmers’ agricultural land. The compensation was fixed at Rs.0.0013 per acre for dry land and Rs.0.0017 per acre for wet land. Accordingly, the Company has paid a total compensation of Rs.3. The Andhra Pradesh High Court disposed of the writ petition on February 12, 2013 and transferred the case to the National Green Tribunal (“NGT”), Chennai, India. The interim orders passed in the writ petitions will continue until the matter is decided by the NGT. The NGT has, through its order dated October 30, 2015, constituted a Fact Finding Committee. The NGT has also permitted the alleged polluting industries to appoint a person on their behalf in the Fact Finding Committee. However, the Company, along with the alleged polluting industries, has challenged the constitution and composition of the Fact Finding Committee. The NGT has directed that until all the applications challenging the constitution and composition of the Fact Finding Committee are disposed of, the Fact Finding Committee shall not commence its operation. The NGT, Chennai in a judgment dated October 24, 2017, disposed of the matter. The Bulk Drug Manufacturers Association of India (“BDMAI”), in which the Company is a member, subsequently filed a review petition against the judgment on various aspects. The NGT, Delhi, in a judgment dated November 16, 2017 in another case in which the Company is not a party, stated that the moratorium imposed in the Patancheru and Bollaram areas shall continue until the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change passes an order keeping in view the needs of the environment and public health. The Company believes that any additional liability that might arise in this regard is not material to the consolidated financial statements. Accordingly, no provision relating to these claims has been made in the consolidated financial statements as of March 31, 2018. Water pollution and air pollution During the year ended March 31, 2012, the Company, along with 14 other companies, received a notice from the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (the “APP Control Board”) to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against them for violations under the Indian Water Pollution Act and the Indian Air Pollution Act. Furthermore, the APP Control Board issued orders to the Company to (i) stop production of all new products at the Company’s manufacturing facilities in Hyderabad, India without obtaining a “Consent for Establishment”, (ii) cease manufacturing products at such facilities in excess of certain quantities specified by the APP Control Board and (iii) furnish a bank guarantee to assure compliance with the APP Control Board’s orders. The Company appealed the APP Control Board orders to the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Appellate Board (the “APP Appellate Board”). The APP Appellate Board, on the basis of a report of a fact-finding advisory committee, recommended to the Andhra Pradesh Government to allow expansion of units fully equipped with Zero-Liquid Discharge (“ZLD”) facilities and otherwise found no fault with the Company (on certain conditions). The APP Appellate Board’s decision was challenged by one of the petitioners in the National Green Tribunal and the matter is currently pending before it. Separately, the Andhra Pradesh Government, following recommendations of the APP Appellate Board, published a notification in July 2013 that allowed expansion of production of all types of existing bulk drug and bulk drug intermediate manufacturing units subject to the installation of ZLD facilities and the outcome of cases pending in the National Green Tribunal. Importantly, the notification directed pollution load of industrial units to be assessed at the point of discharge (if any) as opposed to point of generation. In September 2013, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, based on the revised Comprehensive Environment Pollution Index, issued a notification that re-imposed a moratorium on expansion of industries in certain areas where some of the Company’s manufacturing facilities are located. This notification overrides the Andhra Pradesh Government’s notification that conditionally permitted expansion . Indirect taxes related matters Distribution of input service tax credits The Central Excise Authorities have issued various demand notices to the Company objecting to the Company’s methodology of distributing input service tax credits claimed for one of the Company’s facilities. The below table shows the details of each such demand notice, the amount demanded and the current status of the Company’s responsive actions. Period covered under the notice Amount demanded Status March 2008 to September 2009 Rs.102 plus penalties of Rs.102 and interest The Company has filed an appeal before the CESTAT October 2009 to March 2011 Rs.125 plus penalties of Rs.100 and interest The Company has filed an appeal before the CESTAT April 2011 to March 2012 Rs.51 plus interest and penalties The Company has filed an appeal before the CESTAT April 2012 to March 2013 Rs.54 plus interest and penalties The Company has filed an appeal before the CESTAT April 2013 to March 2014 Rs.69 plus interest and penalties The Company has filed an appeal before the CESTAT April 2014 to March 2015 Rs.108 plus interest and penalties The Company has filed an appeal before the CESTAT April 2015 to March 2016 Rs.157 plus interest and penalties The Company is in the process of responding to the notice The Company believes that the likelihood of any liability that may arise on account of the allegedly inappropriate distribution of input service tax credits is not probable. Accordingly, no provision relating to these claims has been made in these consolidated financial statements as of March 31, 2018. Value Added Tax (“VAT”) matter The Company has received various demand notices from the Government of Telangana’s Commercial Taxes Department objecting to the Company’s methodology of calculation of VAT input credit. Period covered under Amount demanded Status April 2006 to March 2009 Rs.66 plus 10% penalty The Company has filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal April 2009 to March 2011 Rs.59 plus 10% penalty The Company has filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal April 2011 to March 2013 Rs.16 plus 10% penalty The Appellate Deputy Commissioner issued an order partially in favor of the Company The Company has recorded a provision of Rs.27 as of March 31, 2018, and believes that the likelihood of any further liability that may arise on account of the allegedly inappropriate claims to VAT credits is not probable. Others Additionally, the Company is in receipt of various demand notices from the Indian Sales and Service Tax authorities. The disputed amount is Rs.278. The Company has responded to such demand notices and believes that the chances of any liability arising from such notices are less than probable. Accordingly, no provision is made in these financial statements as of March 31, 2018. Fuel Surcharge Adjustments The Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (the “APERC”) passed various orders approving the levy of Fuel Surcharge Adjustment (“FSA”) charges for the period from April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2013 by power distribution companies from all the consumers of electricity in the then existing undivided state of Andhra Pradesh, India where the Company’s headquarters and principal manufacturing facilities are located. Separate writ petitions filed by the Company for various periods, challenging and questioning the validity and legality of this levy of FSA charges by the APERC, are pending before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Supreme Court of India. The total amount approved by APERC for collection by the power distribution companies from the Company in respect of FSA charges for the period from April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2013 is Rs.482. After taking into account all of the available information and legal provisions, the Company has recorded Rs.219 as the potential liability towards FSA charges. However, the Company has paid, under protest, an amount of Rs.354 as demanded by the power distribution companies as part of monthly electricity bills. The Company remains exposed to additional financial liability should the orders passed by the APERC be upheld by the Courts. During the three months ended June 30, 2016, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Company in this regard for the period from April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013. As a result, for the quarter ended June 30, 2016, the Company recognized an expenditure of Rs.55 (by de-r |