5001172026-11-115001172026-11-11in-capmkt:StageOfTheLitigationIsConcludedOrDisputeIsResolvedMember5001172026-11-11in-capmkt:DevelopmentInRelationToProceedingsMemberDCWDCW Limited500117NOTLISTEDINE500A01029Pendency of any litigation(s) or dispute(s) (Sub-para 8-Para B)Regularly till the litigation is concluded or dispute is resolvedNewfalse2026-11-1010:45:002026-11-11Development in relation to proceedingsThis update is being provided with respect to the Writ Appeal WA(MD) 1436/2025 filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu challenging the Madras High Court Madurai Bench Order dated February 26, 2024 passed in W.P(MD) No.11192 of 2017 related to the land matter of the Company situated at Sahupuram, Tamil Nadu2023-08-14Consequent upon the order dated February 26, 2024, the Company had filed a fresh request with the Government, specifying the survey numbers of the lands sought to be allotted to the Company, and is awaiting a hearing in the matter. Subsequently, the Government had filed Writ Appeal WA(MD) 1436/2025 in the Madras High Court Madurai Bench seeking stay and challenging the High Court Order dated February 26, 2024. The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) Division Bench by its Order dated June 13, 2025, directed as follows : (i) the Respondent (the Company) shall not be evicted till the disposal of the Writ Appeal; (ii) there shall be an interim stay. The Madras High Court Madurai Bench by its order dated November 03, 2026, which was uploaded on the Court's website on November 10, 2026 (the original signed physical copy of the order is awaited), has inter alia held as follows: (i) if the lands are resumed, certainly, it will have an adverse impact on the Company. The Company has thus shown that they would suffer detriment if the Government were to go back on their promise which in this case was precise and unambiguous. (ii) It is the Government that has to be blamed for having been inactive. The Government cannot thus take advantage of their own wrong. (iii) The Single Judge has in clear terms held that the Company must pay the market value for the lands as determined by the Government. The Company has to be put on notice and associated in the process of valuation. (iv) All the ingredients of the principle of proprietary estoppel stand fulfilled in this case. There is unequivocal promise on the part of the Government to assign/sell the lands. (v) Applying the test of unconscionability, the Bench came to the conclusion that permitting resumption of the leased lands will lead to an unjust result. (vi) The Bench endorsed the reasons assigned by the learned Judge. (vii) The Additional Advocate General (AAG) submitted that the Company is in possession of very large tracts of land in the vicinity and that the resumption will not impair their functioning. This ground was not set out in the impugned government Order (G.O.) (viii) A public order must speak for itself and that reasons cannot be supplemented during arguments. (ix) Viewed from any angle, the Bench found no merit in the Writ Appeal and accordingly dismissed the same. Others1. The Government of Tamilnadu; 2. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration; 3. The District Collector Collectorate, Tuticorin District; 4. The District Revenue Officer Tuticorin District; and 5. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, TiruchendurReason for Delay in Disclosure: The said order was intimated by the Plant to the Head Office on Tuesday, November 10, 2026. The delay in dissemination of the information was on account of November 10, 2026, being a Diwali holiday at the Company's Head Office, and the time required thereafter for reviewing the order and assessing and discussing its implications and impact on the Company.