GAMMON INDIA LIMITED

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Save as described below, the Company believes that the Company and its subsidiaries are not involved in any legal
proceedings and in the opinion of the Company no proceedings are threatened, which may have, or have had during
the 12 months preceding the date of the Preliminary Placement Document, a material adverse effect on the
Company’s business, financial position, profitability or results of operations.
Proceedings initiated in India
Criminal proceedings
1. Geetha Bore Wells (“Complainant”) has filed a complaint with the metropolitan magistrate court, Cyberabad
against the Company, Abhijit Rajan, Peter Gammon, Himanshu Parikh and others (“Accused”) under the
provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 (“Penal Code”). The Complainant has alleged that Accused parties
are guilty of criminal breach of trust under the provisions of the Penal Code as they have forcefully obtained
the custody of entire machinery and equipments belonging to the Complainant. The magistrate had directed
inquiry in the said matter. The Company has obtained interim stay on the proceedings pending in the court of
metropolitan magistrate and its order directing inquiry from the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The matter is
pending.
2. The Inspector Security Guard Board for Greater Bombay and Thane districts (“Complainant”) had filed a
complaint with the additional chief metropolitan magistrate court, Mumbai, against the Company, Abhijit
Rajan, Himanshu Parekh and others (“Petitioners”), alleging that the Company had employed security guards
of M/s. National Security Services at its andheri premises. The additional chief metropolitan magistrate court
took cognizance of the above complaint and issued process. The Petitioners have filed a writ petition in the
High Court, Bombay for quashing the order of issue of process. The High Court has stayed the further
proceedings of the magistrate court. The matter is pending.
3. The labour enforcement inspector (central), Nagpur (“Complainant”) has filed two complaints against the
erstwhile ATSL and others before the judicial magistrate first class, Amravati and chief judicial magistrate,
Akola under sections 23 and 24 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, respectively. The
Complainant has alleged that ATSL failed to maintain register of persons, did not issue wage slip, and failed
to keep first aid box. The charges have been denied. The matters are pending.
4. The labour enforcement inspector (central), Nagpur (“Complainant”) has filed a complaint against the
erstwhile ATSL and others before the chief judicial magistrate, Wardha under section 47 of the Building and
Other Construction Workers (Regulation and Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996. The
Complainant has alleged that ATSL failed to make any provisions for essential life saving aids and
appliances to be kept at the site. The matter is pending for framing of charges.
5. The government labour officer (“Complainant”) has filed a complaint before judicial magistrate first class,
Nagpur, against ATSL through D.C Bagde, Director for non observance of provisions of Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 at Hingana factory taken on lease from Sunrise Engineering Limited.
The matter is pending.
Civil proceedings
6. Dena Bank (“Applicant”) and filed an application against Satav Infrastructure Private Limited (“Defendant”)
and others, including the Company in the DRT, Pune. The joint venture involving the Company was made a
144