Common use of Litigations Clause in Contracts

Litigations. 39.1 On December 6, 2011, a government agency sent a letter to a bank asking to hold the bank guarantee of Baht 20 million that the Company deposited as the mortgage since the said agency claimed that the Company failed to perform according to the contract. On December 29, 2011, the Company filed the abovementioned agency and its parties to the Central Administrative Court for the sentence of releasing the captioned bank guarantee with the compensation charge in total Baht 27.5 million plus the interest rate of 7.5 % per annum including any related fee from the next day of filing date until completion of payment since the Company considered that such a claim was not caused by the Company’s fault. On the contrary, the Company could not perform according to the contract due to the law of restricted areas. On May 20, 2015, the Central Administrative Court had rendered judgement and ordered the government agency to return the Baht 20 million bank guarantee dated 31 August 2007 to the Company under the condition that both the Company and bank jointly shared the responsibility to pay the total of Baht 10 million plus the interest rate of 7.5 % per annum from the next day of filing date (29 December 2011) until completion of payment or within 60 days starting from the date of final judgement whereas all remaining parts to be dismissed. On June 19, 2015, the government agency made an appeal to the Central Administrative Court and later on October 16, 2015, the Company made an appeal clarification to the court. Presently, the Central Administrative Court is considering the appeal clarification. However, the Company has already recorded the contingent liabilities of Baht 20 million arisen in the financial statements. 39.2 On December 4, 2007, the subsidiary filed a suit to the Central Administrative Court against a government agency (litigant) in order for payment of a penalty charge of Baht 13.4 million for termination of construction contract by deducting the advance payment of Baht 7.7 million as per the contract and the total of damages to be paid Baht 6.1 million plus the interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from the filing date until the completion of payment. However, the litigant submitted its pleading to the Central Administration Court on August 20, 2008 claiming that the amount of damages was overrated and the third resolution of the Compensation Committee was made on July 16, 2008 to order the government agency to pay the compensation of Baht 0.8 million to the subsidiary. Therefore, it ordered the subsidiary to return the amount of Baht 6.8 million to the government agency, respectively. After that, several amendments to the petition and pleadings of both parties were made. On April 20, 2010, the litigant submitted its latest amended pleadings to the Central Administrative Court about the fee of the advance payment bank guarantee of Baht 0.1 million and the litigant asked the court for dismissal and order the subsidiary to return the litigant the advance amount of Baht 7.7 million in order to proceed as per the employment contract. The subsidiary submitted its latest amended pleadings to the Central Administration Court on January 24, 2012 requesting the court to render judgement ordering the litigant to offset the compensation amount of Baht 19.4 million with the amount of Baht 7.7 million advanced to the subsidiary to proceed as per the employment contract as well as paying the damage amount of Baht 12.5 million to the subsidiary plus the interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from the filing date until the completion of payment. The litigant submitted its refusal pleadings and asked the court for dismissal and returning of the aforementioned advance payment amount as well. On July 31, 2012, the court rendered judgement ordering the subsidiary to receive Baht 3.3 million and also return Baht 4.4 million to the litigant. The subsidiary then submitted its appeal for the judgement to the Supreme Administrative Court on August 29, 2012. On April 30, 2020, the Supreme Administrative Court ordered the subsidiary to indemnify the party in the amount of Baht 3.75 million. Later, on July 20, 2020 the subsidiary has already paid the indemnity to the party and consider this case to be terminated. 39.3 On April 24, 2008, a private company and group (party) filed a charge against the Company and group to the Administrative Court of First Level on the breach and claimed the damages in the amount of Baht 6 million with the interest rate at 7.5% per annum from the filing date until payment is made. On May 29, 2012, the court rendered judgement of dismissal but later on June 20, 2013, the litigant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court and on August 9, 2013, the Supreme Adminstrative Court had ordered to set October 2, 2019 as the new ending date for seeking facts. On June 22, 2020, the Administrative Court sent a notice scheduling the first trial by setting the first trial date on August 20, 2020 to the Supreme Administrative Court. On August 30, 2020, the Supreme Court has ruled the judgment. The case is final and will issue its rulings. Presently, such case is pending the judgment of the Supreme Court and the management believes that the Company will not suffer significant damage (if any). Such lawsuit has not recorded provisions in the interim financial statements. 39.4 On September 14, 2015, the plaintiff (the litigant) filed a lawsuit against a government agency and 8 co-defendants to the Administrative Court for compensation of damages from loss of income of Baht 87.5 million. The Company is sued as the fifth defendant. On March 11, 2016, the Company filed an objection against the plaintiff’s request to waive the court fee. Later, on October 28, 2016, the Company filed a statement to fight the case to the Administrative Court. On January 12, 2017, the Company has just submitted the statement of defence to the court and the court ordered the Company to submit the additional statement within 30 days. During February 7, 2017 to March 31, 2017 the Company had requested to extend the submission of the additional clarification to the Administration Court. Later on April 4, 2017, the Administrative Court had ordered the Company to submit the additional clarification within May 12, 2017. On June 12, 2017, the Company submitted the additional statement to the Administration Court. On January 9, 2019, the Administrative Court ordered the date of January 31, 2019 to be the last day of investigation. On April 29, 2019, the Administrtive Court had ordered to cancel the ending date for seeking facts and had ordered to set May 13, 2019 as the new ending date for seeking facts. On December 29, 2020, the Central Administrative Court had sentenced that as the Company was not a delegate to exercise power or conduct administrative affairs, then it was not a government agency under Section 3 of the Administrative Court Establishment Act. The Administrative Court was unable to accept the complaint in the case filed against the Company for consideration and judgment, dismiss the Company and consider this case to be terminated. 39.5 On December 6, 2017, the co-contractor of the Company’s construction project had filed a lawsuit to the arbitrator requesting the Company to return the collateral held at the amount of SGD 1.6 million or equivalent to Baht 39.4 million with interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from the filing date until completion of payment. On June 21, 2018, the arbitration Institution had announced the appointment of the chairman of arbitration. On July 17, 2018, the Company and the Party were present before the arbitrator for determination of the dispute and set the date for witness investigation. On November 22, 2018, the witness examination was completely made by the arbitration and both parties. On January 23, 2019, both parties submitted their closing statements within the due date for final decision of the arbitration. On July 9, 2019, the arbitrator had a meeting to explain the opinion on the case. The 2 arbitrators had an opinion to return the sum under the guarantee letter of SGD 1.6 million with an interest rate 7.5% per annum from December 6, 2017 to the Party and 1 arbitrator had an opinion for the company not to return the money of the full amount in the guarantee letter to the Party. If both parties do not agree with any opinion, a petition should be prepared to explain a reason to support within 30 days from such date. On August 7, 2019, the Company submitted a petition to explain the opinion of the company to the arbitrator explaining and giving opinion on issues that they do not reach agreement with the arbitrator’s explanation. On September 4, 2019, the arbitrator institute notified the opinion of the arbitrator by standing on the explanation that was informed to every party. On November 13, 2019, both parties have agreed to enter into a compromise agreement to pay in accordance with the award of the arbitrator by offsetting the debt. The outstanding amount of principal and interest from the date of lawsuit to October 31, 2019 that the Company has to pay to the claimant is totaled SGD 1,726,706.70 or approximately Baht 38.89 million by dividing into 2 installments : November 15, 2019 amount of Baht 36.25 million and February 28, 2020 amount of Baht 2.64 million, respectively. The Company paid the principal and interest to the claimant within the specified time. 39.6 On February 5, 2018, the supplier for the Company’s construction project had filed a lawsuit to the Commercial Court requesting for payment of outstanding amount of Baht 23.5 million with interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from filing date until completion of payment. On May 16, 2018, the Company submitted the testimony to the Court and the mediation was conducted on August 28, 2018 but could not come to an agreement. On October 1, 2018, the Court ordered the Company and the Party to determine the dispute and scheduled the date for witness investigation from both parties in March 2019. Later, on March 5 - 7, 2019, both parties were conducting the witness examination of each party but the witness examination of the Company was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of additional witness examination on April 26, 2019. Later on April 26, 2019, the Company was conducting the witness examination but the process was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of witness examination on May 29, 2019. Later on May 29, 2019, the Company was conducting the witness examination but the process was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of witness examination on July 12, 2019. Later on July 12, 2019, the Company has proceeded with the witness examination. Both parties announced to finish the witness investigation. The Court ordered to prepare an announcement for closing the case to be filed to the Court within August 15, 2019. On October 9, 2019, the Court ordered the Company to pay the outstanding amount for goods in the amount of Baht 23.5 million with interest rate 7.5% per annum from February 6, 2018 until settlement is completed. Court’s ruling No.2 request to suspend the case execution. On October 15, 2020 the Appeal Court 2 received the petition for appeal and ordered the Company to stay the execution of the sentence for the Company to place collateral in front of the court for the amount to be settled under the ruling of the Court of First Instance along with interest until the hearing date and 1 year further in the full amount on November 17, 2020. The Appeal Court 2 scheduled the case ruling on December 9, 2020. On February 11, 2021, the Company and the plaintiff were agreed and the Company agreed to pay the debt to the plaintiff amounted Baht 18 million into 3 installments at Baht 2 million, Baht 8 million and Baht 8 million. The plaintiff will not intend to appeal the case and this case is considered as finalized, the Company has recorded the outstanding amount of goods in the financial statements. As a result, the Company is not required to provide a provision for contingent liabilities. 39.7 On October 16, 2017, the Nakhon Ratchasima Administrative Court accepted a case between a litigant and the government agencies, requesting the Court to issue an order as relating to the following; 1) Requesting that the government agencies revoke the permission to use the water from a reservoir that had been granted to the associate.

Litigations. 39.1 36.1 On December 6, 2011, a government agency sent a letter to a bank asking to hold the bank guarantee of Baht 20 million that the Company deposited as the mortgage since the said agency claimed that the Company failed to perform according to the contract. On December 29, 2011, the Company filed the abovementioned agency and its parties to the Central Administrative Court for the sentence of releasing the captioned bank guarantee with the compensation charge in total Baht 27.5 million plus the interest rate of 7.5 % per annum including any related fee from the next day of filing date until completion of payment since the Company considered that such a claim was not caused by the Company’s fault. On on the contrary, the Company could not perform according to the contract due to the law of restricted areas. On May 20, 2015, the Central Administrative Court had rendered judgement and ordered the government agency to return the Baht 20 million bank guarantee dated 31 August 2007 to the Company under the condition that both the Company and bank jointly shared the responsibility to pay the total of Baht 10 million plus the interest rate of 7.5 % per annum from the next day of filing date (29 December 2011) until completion of payment or within 60 days starting from the date of final judgement whereas all remaining parts to be dismissed. On June 19, 2015, the government agency made an appeal to the Central Administrative Court and later on October 16, 2015, the Company made an appeal clarification to the court. Presently, the Central Administrative Court is considering the appeal clarification. However, the Company has already recorded the contingent liabilities of Baht 20 million arisen in the financial statements. 39.2 36.2 On December 4, 2007, the subsidiary filed a suit to the Central Administrative Court against a government agency (litigant) in order for payment of a penalty charge of Baht 13.4 million for termination of construction contract by deducting the advance payment of Baht 7.7 million as per the contract and the total of damages to be paid Baht 6.1 million plus the interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from the filing date until the completion of payment. However, the litigant submitted its pleading to the Central Administration Court on August 20, 2008 claiming that the amount of damages was overrated and the third resolution of the Compensation Committee was made on July 16, 2008 to order the government agency to pay the compensation of Baht 0.8 million to the subsidiary. Therefore, it ordered the subsidiary to return the amount of Baht 6.8 million to the government agency, respectively. After that, several amendments to the petition and pleadings of both parties were made. On April 20, 2010, the litigant submitted its latest amended pleadings to the Central Administrative Court about the fee of the advance payment bank guarantee of Baht 0.1 million and the litigant asked the court for dismissal and order the subsidiary to return the litigant the advance amount of Baht 7.7 million in order to proceed as per the employment contract. The subsidiary submitted its latest amended pleadings to the Central Administration Court on January May 24, 2012 requesting the court to render judgement ordering the litigant to offset the compensation amount of Baht 19.4 million with the amount of Baht 7.7 million advanced to the subsidiary to proceed as per the employment contract as well as paying the damage amount of Baht 12.5 million to the subsidiary plus the interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from the filing date until the completion of payment. The litigant submitted its refusal pleadings and asked the court for dismissal and returning of the aforementioned advance payment amount as well. On July 31, 2012, the court rendered judgement ordering the subsidiary to receive Baht 3.3 million and also return Baht 4.4 million to the litigant. The subsidiary then submitted its appeal for the judgement to the Supreme Administrative Court on August 29, 2012. On April 30, 2020, the Supreme Administrative Court ordered the subsidiary to indemnify the party in the amount of Baht 3.75 million. Later, on July 20, 2020 the subsidiary has already paid the indemnity to the party and consider this case to be terminated. 39.3 On April 24, 20082011, a private company and group (party) filed a charge against the Company and group to the Administrative Court of First Level on the breach and claimed the damages in the amount of Baht 6 million with the interest rate at 7.5% per annum from the filing date until payment is made. On May 29, 2012, the court rendered judgement of dismissal but later on June 20, 2013, the litigant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court and on August 9, 2013, the Supreme Adminstrative Court had ordered to set October 2, 2019 as the new ending date for seeking facts. On June 22, 2020, the Administrative Court sent a notice scheduling the first trial by setting the first trial date on August 20, 2020 to the Supreme Administrative Court. On August 30, 2020, the Supreme Court has ruled the judgment. The case is final and will issue its rulings. Presently, such case is pending the judgment of the Supreme Court and the management believes that the Company will not suffer significant damage (if any). Such lawsuit has not recorded provisions in the interim financial statements. 39.4 On September 14, 2015, the plaintiff (the litigant) filed a lawsuit against a government agency and 8 co-defendants to the Administrative Court for compensation of damages from loss of income of Baht 87.5 million. The Company is sued as the fifth defendant. On March 11, 2016, the Company filed an objection against the plaintiff’s request to waive the court fee. Later, on October 28, 2016, the Company filed a statement to fight the case to the Administrative Court. On January 12, 2017, the Company has just submitted the statement of defence to the court and the court ordered the Company to submit the additional statement within 30 days. During February 7, 2017 to March 31, 2017 the Company had requested to extend the submission of the additional clarification to the Administration Court. Later on April 4, 2017, the Administrative Commercial Court had ordered the Company to submit the additional clarification within May 12, 2017. On June 12, 2017, the Company submitted the additional statement to the Administration Court. On January 9, 2019, the Administrative Court ordered the date of January 31, 2019 to be the last day of investigation. On April 29, 2019, the Administrtive Court had ordered to cancel the ending date for seeking facts and had ordered to set May 13, 2019 as the new ending date for seeking facts. On December 29, 2020, the Central Administrative Court had sentenced that as the Company was not a delegate to exercise power or conduct administrative affairs, then it was not a government agency under Section 3 of the Administrative Court Establishment Act. The Administrative Court was unable to accept the complaint in the case filed against the Company for consideration and judgment, dismiss subsidiary claiming that the Company and consider this case to be terminated. 39.5 On December 6, 2017, the co-contractor of the Company’s construction project had filed a lawsuit to the arbitrator requesting the Company to return the collateral held at the amount of SGD 1.6 million or equivalent to Baht 39.4 million with interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from the filing date until completion of payment. On June 21, 2018, the arbitration Institution had announced the appointment of the chairman of arbitration. On July 17, 2018, the Company and the Party were present before the arbitrator for determination of the dispute and set the date for witness investigation. On November 22, 2018, the witness examination was completely made by the arbitration and both parties. On January 23, 2019, both parties submitted their closing statements within the due date for final decision of the arbitration. On July 9, 2019, the arbitrator had a meeting to explain the opinion subsidiary has defaulted on the case. The 2 arbitrators had an opinion to return the sum under the guarantee letter contract claiming damage of SGD 1.6 million with an interest rate 7.5% per annum from December 6, 2017 to the Party and 1 arbitrator had an opinion for the company not to return the money of the full amount in the guarantee letter to the Party. If both parties do not agree with any opinion, a petition should be prepared to explain a reason to support within 30 days from such date. On August 7, 2019, the Company submitted a petition to explain the opinion of the company to the arbitrator explaining and giving opinion on issues that they do not reach agreement with the arbitrator’s explanation. On September 4, 2019, the arbitrator institute notified the opinion of the arbitrator by standing on the explanation that was informed to every party. On November 13, 2019, both parties have agreed to enter into a compromise agreement to pay in accordance with the award of the arbitrator by offsetting the debt. The outstanding amount of principal and interest from the date of lawsuit to October 31, 2019 that the Company has to pay to the claimant is totaled SGD 1,726,706.70 or approximately Baht 38.89 million by dividing into 2 installments : November 15, 2019 amount of Baht 36.25 million and February 28, 2020 amount of Baht 2.64 million, respectively. The Company paid the principal and interest to the claimant within the specified time. 39.6 On February 5, 2018, the supplier for the Company’s construction project had filed a lawsuit to the Commercial Court requesting for payment of outstanding amount of Baht 23.5 million with interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from filing date until completion of payment. On May 16, 2018, the Company submitted the testimony to the Court and the mediation was conducted on August 28, 2018 but could not come to an agreement. On October 1, 2018, the Court ordered the Company and the Party to determine the dispute and scheduled the date for witness investigation from both parties in March 2019. Later, on March 5 - 7, 2019, both parties were conducting the witness examination of each party but the witness examination of the Company was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of additional witness examination on April 26, 2019. Later on April 26, 2019, the Company was conducting the witness examination but the process was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of witness examination on May 29, 2019. Later on May 29, 2019, the Company was conducting the witness examination but the process was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of witness examination on July 12, 2019. Later on July 12, 2019, the Company has proceeded with the witness examination. Both parties announced to finish the witness investigation. The Court ordered to prepare an announcement for closing the case to be filed to the Court within August 15, 2019. On October 9, 2019, the Court ordered the Company to pay the outstanding amount for goods in the amount of Baht 23.5 million with interest rate 7.5% per annum from February 6, 2018 until settlement is completed. Court’s ruling No.2 request to suspend the case execution. On October 15, 2020 the Appeal Court 2 received the petition for appeal and ordered the Company to stay the execution of the sentence for the Company to place collateral in front of the court for the amount to be settled under the ruling of the Court of First Instance along with interest until the hearing date and 1 year further in the full amount on November 17, 2020. The Appeal Court 2 scheduled the case ruling on December 9, 2020. On February 11, 2021, the Company and the plaintiff were agreed and the Company agreed to pay the debt to the plaintiff amounted Baht 18 million into 3 installments at Baht 2 million, Baht 8 million and Baht 8 million. The plaintiff will not intend to appeal the case and this case is considered as finalized, the Company has recorded the outstanding amount of goods in the financial statements. As a result, the Company is not required to provide a provision for contingent liabilities. 39.7 On October 16, 2017, the Nakhon Ratchasima Administrative Court accepted a case between a litigant and the government agencies, requesting the Court to issue an order as relating to the following; 1) Requesting that the government agencies revoke the permission to use the water from a reservoir that had been granted to the associate.Baht

Litigations. 39.1 26.1 On December 6, 2011, a government agency sent a letter to a bank asking to hold the bank guarantee of Baht 20 million that the Company deposited as the mortgage since the said agency claimed that the Company failed to perform according to the contract. On December 29, 2011, the Company filed the abovementioned agency and its parties to the Central Administrative Court for the sentence of releasing the captioned bank guarantee with the compensation charge in total Baht 27.5 million plus the interest rate of 7.5 % per annum including any related fee from the next day of filing date until completion of payment since the Company considered that such a claim was not caused by the Company’s fault. On the contrary, the Company could not perform according to the contract due to the law of restricted areas. On May 20, 2015, the Central Administrative Court had rendered judgement and ordered the government agency to return the Baht 20 million bank guarantee dated 31 August 2007 to the Company under the condition that both the Company and bank jointly shared the responsibility to pay the total of Baht 10 million plus the interest rate of 7.5 % per annum from the next day of filing date (29 December 2011) until completion of payment or within 60 days starting from the date of final judgement whereas all remaining parts to be dismissed. On June 19, 2015, the government agency made an appeal to the Central Administrative Court and later on October 16, 2015, the Company made an appeal clarification to the court. Presently, the Central Administrative Court is considering the appeal clarification. However, the Company has already recorded the contingent liabilities of Baht 20 million arisen in the interim financial statements. 39.2 26.2 On December 4, 2007, the subsidiary filed a suit to the Central Administrative Court against a government agency (litigant) in order for payment of a penalty charge of Baht 13.4 million for termination of construction contract by deducting the advance payment of Baht 7.7 million as per the contract and the total of damages to be paid Baht 6.1 million plus the interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from the filing date until the completion of payment. However, the litigant submitted its pleading to the Central Administration Court on August 20, 2008 claiming that the amount of damages was overrated and the third resolution of the Compensation Committee was made on July 16, 2008 to order the government agency to pay the compensation of Baht 0.8 million to the subsidiary. Therefore, it ordered the subsidiary to return the amount of Baht 6.8 million to the government agency, respectively. After that, several amendments to the petition and pleadings of both parties were made. On April 20, 2010, the litigant submitted its latest amended pleadings to the Central Administrative Court about the fee of the advance payment bank guarantee of Baht 0.1 million and the litigant asked the court for dismissal and order the subsidiary to return the litigant the advance amount of Baht 7.7 million in order to proceed as per the employment contract. The subsidiary submitted its latest amended pleadings to the Central Administration Court on January 24, 2012 requesting the court to render judgement ordering the litigant to offset the compensation amount of Baht 19.4 million with the amount of Baht 7.7 million advanced to the subsidiary to proceed as per the employment contract as well as paying the damage amount of Baht 12.5 million to the subsidiary plus the interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from the filing date until the completion of payment. The litigant submitted its refusal pleadings and asked the court for dismissal and returning of the aforementioned advance payment amount as well. On July 31, 2012, the court rendered judgement ordering the subsidiary to receive Baht 3.3 million and also return Baht 4.4 million to the litigant. The subsidiary then submitted its appeal for the judgement to the Supreme Administrative Court on August 29, 2012. On April 30Since the outcome of the case is not final, 2020, the Supreme Administrative Court ordered the subsidiary to indemnify the party in the amount of Baht 3.75 million. Later, on July 20, 2020 the subsidiary has already paid not yet recorded in the indemnity to the party and consider this case to be terminatedinterim financial statements. 39.3 26.3 On April 24, 2008, a private company and group its partner (partylitigant) filed a charge against the Company and group suit to the Administrative Court of First Level Instance against the Company and its partner on violation against the breach contract and claimed the sued for damages in the amount of Baht 6 million with plus the interest rate at of 7.5% per annum starting from the filing date until payment is madecompletion of payment. On May 29, 2012, the court rendered judgement of dismissal but later on June 20, 2013, the litigant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court and on August 9, 2013, the Supreme Adminstrative Court had ordered to set October 2, 2019 as the new ending date for seeking facts. On June 22, 2020, Since this case remains under the Administrative Court sent a notice scheduling the first trial by setting the first trial date on August 20, 2020 to consideration of the Supreme Administrative Court. On August 30, 2020, the Supreme Court has ruled the judgment. The case is final and will issue its rulings. Presently, such case is pending the judgment of the Supreme Court and since the Company’s management believes has confidence that the Company will not suffer incur any significant damage loss (if any). Such lawsuit has ) from this litigation, any provisions of liabilities then have not yet been recorded provisions in the interim financial statements. 39.4 26.4 On September 14, 2015, the plaintiff (the litigant) filed a lawsuit against a government agency and 8 co-defendants to the Administrative Court for compensation of damages from loss of income of Baht 87.5 million. The Company is sued as the fifth defendant. On March 11, 2016, the Company filed an objection against the plaintiff’s request to waive the court fee. Later, on October 28, 2016, the Company filed a statement to fight the case to the Administrative Court. On January 12, 2017, the Company has just submitted the statement of defence to the court and the court ordered the Company to submit the additional statement within 30 days. During February 7, 2017 to March 31, 2017 the Company had requested to extend the submission of the additional clarification to the Administration Court. Later on April 4, 2017, the Administrative Court had ordered the Company to submit the additional clarification within May 12, 2017. On June 12, 2017, the Company submitted the additional statement to the Administration Court. On January 9, 2019, the Administrative Court ordered the date of January 31, 2019 to be the last day of investigation. On April 29, 2019, the Administrtive Court had ordered to cancel the ending date for seeking facts and had ordered to set May 13, 2019 as the new ending date for seeking facts. On December 29, 2020, the Central Administrative Court had sentenced that as the Company was not a delegate to exercise power or conduct administrative affairs, then it was not a government agency Since this case is under Section 3 consideration of the Administrative Court Establishment ActCourt, the Company’s management is confident that the Company will not incur any significant loss (if any) from this litigation. The Administrative Court was unable to accept the complaint Any provision of liabilities then have not yet been recorded in the case filed against the Company for consideration and judgment, dismiss the Company and consider this case to be terminatedinterim financial statements. 39.5 26.5 On December 6, 2017, the co-contractor of the Company’s construction project had filed a lawsuit to the arbitrator requesting the Company to return the collateral held at the amount of SGD SGD 1.6 million or equivalent to Baht 39.4 million with interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from the filing date until completion of payment. On June 21, 2018, the arbitration Institution had announced the appointment of the chairman of arbitration. On July 17, 2018, the Company and the Party were present before the arbitrator for determination of the dispute and set the date for witness investigation. On November 22, 2018, the witness examination was completely made by the arbitration and both parties. On January 23, 2019, both parties submitted their closing statements within the due date for final decision of the arbitration. On July 9, 2019, the arbitrator had a meeting to explain the opinion on the case. The 2 arbitrators had an opinion to return the sum under the guarantee letter of SGD 1.6 million with an interest rate 7.5% per annum from December 6, 2017 to the Party and 1 arbitrator had an opinion for the company not to return the money of the full amount in the guarantee letter to the Party. If both parties do not agree with any opinion, a petition should be prepared to explain a reason to support within 30 days from such date. On August 7, 2019, the Company submitted a petition to explain the opinion of the company to the arbitrator explaining and giving opinion on issues that they do not reach agreement with the arbitrator’s explanation. On September 4, 2019, the arbitrator institute notified the opinion of the arbitrator by standing on the explanation that was informed to every party. On November 13, 2019, both parties have agreed to enter into a compromise agreement to pay in accordance with the award of the arbitrator by offsetting the debt. The outstanding amount of principal and interest from the date of lawsuit to October 31, 2019 that the Company has to pay to the claimant is totaled SGD 1,726,706.70 or approximately Baht 38.89 million by dividing into 2 installments : November 15, 2019 amount of Baht 36.25 million and February 28, 2020 amount of Baht 2.64 million, respectively. The Company paid the principal and interest to the claimant within the specified time. 39.6 26.6 On February 5, 2018, the supplier for the Company’s construction project had filed a lawsuit to the Commercial Court requesting for payment of outstanding amount of Baht 23.5 million with interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from filing date until completion of payment. On May 16, 2018, the Company submitted the testimony to the Court and the mediation was conducted on August 28, 2018 but could not come to an agreement. On October 1, 2018, the Court ordered the Company and the Party to determine the dispute and scheduled the date for witness investigation from both parties in March 2019. Later, on March 5 - 7, 2019, both parties were conducting the witness examination of each party but the witness examination of the Company was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of additional witness examination on April 26, 2019. Later on April 26, 2019, the Company was conducting the witness examination but the process was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of witness examination on May 29, 2019. Later on May 29, 2019, the Company was conducting the witness examination but the process was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of witness examination on July 12, 2019. Later on July 12, 2019, the Company has proceeded with the witness examination. Both parties announced to finish the witness investigation. The Court ordered to prepare an announcement for closing the case to be filed to the Court within August 15, 2019. On October 9, 2019, the Court ordered the Company to pay the outstanding amount for goods in the amount of Baht 23.5 million with interest rate 7.5% per annum from February 6, 2018 until settlement is completed. Court’s ruling No.2 request to suspend the case execution. On October 15, 2020 the Appeal Court 2 received the petition for appeal and ordered the Company to stay the execution of the sentence for the Company to place collateral in front of the court for the amount to be settled under the ruling of the Court of First Instance along with interest until the hearing date and 1 year further in the full amount on November 17February 7, 2020. The Appeal Court 2 scheduled the case ruling on December 9, 2020. On February 11, 2021, the Company had filed an appeal and the plaintiff were agreed and the Company agreed to pay the debt to the plaintiff amounted Baht 18 million into 3 installments at Baht 2 million, Baht 8 million and Baht 8 millionrequested for a case enforcement relief. The plaintiff will not intend to appeal the case and this case is considered as finalized, now awaiting the Company has plaintiff’s filing for the appeal correction. The outstanding payment goods had already been recorded the outstanding amount of goods in the interim financial statements. As a result, the The Company is did not required have to provide a provision for contingent liabilities. 39.7 26.7 On October 16, 2017, the Nakhon Ratchasima Administrative Court accepted a case between a litigant and the government agencies, requesting the Court to issue an order as relating to the following; 1) Requesting that the government agencies revoke the permission to use the water from a reservoir that had been granted to the associate.

Litigations. 39.1 25.1 On December 6, 2011, a government agency sent a letter to a bank asking to hold the bank guarantee of Baht 20 million that the Company deposited as the mortgage since the said agency claimed that the Company failed to perform according to the contract. On December 29, 2011, the Company filed the abovementioned agency and its parties to the Central Administrative Court for the sentence of releasing the captioned bank guarantee with the compensation charge in total totally Baht 27.5 million plus the interest rate of 7.5 % per annum including any related fee from the next day of filing date until completion of payment since the Company considered that such a claim was not caused by the Company’s fault. On fault on the contrary, the Company could not perform according to the contract due to the law of restricted areas. On May 20, 2015, the Central Administrative Court had rendered judgement and ordered the government agency to return the Company’s Baht 20 million bank guarantee dated 31 August 2007 to the Company under the condition that both the Company and bank government agency jointly shared the responsibility to pay the total of Baht 10 million plus the interest rate of 7.5 % per annum from the next day of filing date (29 December 2011) until completion of payment or within 60 days starting from the date of final judgement whereas all remaining parts to be dismissed. On June 19, 2015, the government agency made an appeal to the Central Administrative Court and later on October 16, 2015, the Company made an appeal clarification to the court. Presently, the Central Administrative Court is considering the appeal clarification. However, clarification the Company has already recorded the contingent liabilities of Baht 20 million arisen in the financial statements. 39.2 25.2 On December 4May 24, 20072011, a private company (litigant) filed the case to the Commercial Court against the subsidiary claiming that the subsidiary defaulted the contract with recover damage of Baht 17.5 million plus the interest rate of 7.5 % per annum starting from the filing date until completion of payment. On September 21, 2011, the subsidiary filed a suit submitted the clarification statement to the Central Administrative Commercial Court against by refusing the accusation of the litigant and requested the court for dismissal and also to order the litigant to pay the completed work charge of Baht 10.9 million, according to the contract, to the subsidiary. On July 21, 2014, the Commercial Court made a government agency (litigant) in order for payment of a sentence to have the subsidiary to pay to the litigant the penalty charge of Baht 13.4 million for termination of construction contract by deducting the advance payment of Baht 7.7 million as per the contract and the total of damages to be paid Baht 6.1 11 million plus the interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from the filing date until the completion of paymentpayment and cost of execution of Baht 0.1 million for the litigant. However, the litigant submitted its pleading to the Central Administration Court on August 20, 2008 claiming that the amount of damages was overrated and the third resolution of the Compensation Committee was made on July 16, 2008 to order the government agency to pay the compensation of Baht 0.8 million to the subsidiary. Therefore, it ordered the subsidiary to return the amount of Baht 6.8 million to the government agency, respectively. After that, several amendments to the petition and pleadings of both parties were made. On April 20, 2010fact for litigation, the litigant submitted its latest amended pleadings to the Central Administrative Court about the fee of the advance payment bank guarantee of Baht 0.1 million and the litigant asked the court for dismissal and order the subsidiary to return the litigant the advance amount of Baht 7.7 million in order to proceed as per the employment contract. The subsidiary submitted its latest amended pleadings to the Central Administration Court on January 24, 2012 requesting the court to render judgement ordering the litigant to offset the compensation amount of Baht 19.4 million with the amount of Baht 7.7 million advanced to the subsidiary to proceed as per the employment contract as well as paying the damage amount of Baht 12.5 million to the subsidiary plus the interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from the filing date until the completion of payment. The litigant submitted its refusal pleadings and asked the court for dismissal and returning of the aforementioned advance payment amount as well. On July 31, 2012, the court rendered judgement ordering the subsidiary to receive Baht 3.3 million and also return Baht 4.4 million to the litigant. The subsidiary then submitted its an appeal for the Civil Court’s judgement to the Supreme Administrative Court on August 29, 2012. On April 30, 2020, the Supreme Administrative Court ordered the subsidiary to indemnify the party in the amount of Baht 3.75 million. Later, on July 20, 2020 the subsidiary has already paid the indemnity to the party and consider this case to be terminatedcourt. 39.3 On April 24, 2008, a private company and group (party) filed a charge against the Company and group to the Administrative Court of First Level on the breach and claimed the damages in the amount of Baht 6 million with the interest rate at 7.5% per annum from the filing date until payment is made. On May 29, 2012, the court rendered judgement of dismissal but later on June 20, 2013, the litigant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court and on August 9, 2013, the Supreme Adminstrative Court had ordered to set October 2, 2019 as the new ending date for seeking facts. On June 22, 2020, the Administrative Court sent a notice scheduling the first trial by setting the first trial date on August 20, 2020 to the Supreme Administrative Court. On August 30, 2020, the Supreme Court has ruled the judgment. The case is final and will issue its rulings. Presently, such case is pending the judgment of the Supreme Court and the management believes that the Company will not suffer significant damage (if any). Such lawsuit has not recorded provisions in the interim financial statements. 39.4 On September 14, 2015, the plaintiff (the litigant) filed a lawsuit against a government agency and 8 co-defendants to the Administrative Court for compensation of damages from loss of income of Baht 87.5 million. The Company is sued as the fifth defendant. On March 11, 2016, the Company filed an objection against the plaintiff’s request to waive the court fee. Later, on October 28, 2016, the Company filed a statement to fight the case to the Administrative Court. On January 12, 2017, the Company has just submitted the statement of defence to the court and the court ordered the Company to submit the additional statement within 30 days. During February 7, 2017 to March 31, 2017 the Company had requested to extend the submission of the additional clarification to the Administration Court. Later on April 4, 2017, the Administrative Court had ordered the Company to submit the additional clarification within May 12, 2017. On June 12, 2017, the Company submitted the additional statement to the Administration Court. On January 9, 2019, the Administrative Court ordered the date of January 31, 2019 to be the last day of investigation. On April 29, 2019, the Administrtive Court had ordered to cancel the ending date for seeking facts and had ordered to set May 13, 2019 as the new ending date for seeking facts. On December 29, 2020, the Central Administrative Court had sentenced that as the Company was not a delegate to exercise power or conduct administrative affairs, then it was not a government agency under Section 3 of the Administrative Court Establishment Act. The Administrative Court was unable to accept the complaint in the case filed against the Company for consideration and judgment, dismiss the Company and consider this case to be terminated. 39.5 On December 6, 2017, the co-contractor of the Company’s construction project had filed a lawsuit to the arbitrator requesting the Company to return the collateral held at the amount of SGD 1.6 million or equivalent to Baht 39.4 million with interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from the filing date until completion of payment. On June 21, 2018, the arbitration Institution had announced the appointment of the chairman of arbitration. On July 17, 2018, the Company and the Party were present before the arbitrator for determination of the dispute and set the date for witness investigation. On November 22, 2018, the witness examination was completely made by the arbitration and both parties. On January 23, 2019, both parties submitted their closing statements within the due date for final decision of the arbitration. On July 9, 2019, the arbitrator had a meeting to explain the opinion on the case. The 2 arbitrators had an opinion to return the sum under the guarantee letter of SGD 1.6 million with an interest rate 7.5% per annum from December 6, 2017 to the Party and 1 arbitrator had an opinion for the company not to return the money of the full amount in the guarantee letter to the Party. If both parties do not agree with any opinion, a petition should be prepared to explain a reason to support within 30 days from such date. On August 7, 2019, the Company submitted a petition to explain the opinion of the company to the arbitrator explaining and giving opinion on issues that they do not reach agreement with the arbitrator’s explanation. On September 4, 2019, the arbitrator institute notified the opinion of the arbitrator by standing on the explanation that was informed to every party. On November 13, 2019, both parties have agreed to enter into a compromise agreement to pay in accordance with the award of the arbitrator by offsetting the debt. The outstanding amount of principal and interest from the date of lawsuit to October 31, 2019 that the Company has to pay to the claimant is totaled SGD 1,726,706.70 or approximately Baht 38.89 million by dividing into 2 installments : November 15, 2019 amount of Baht 36.25 million and February 28, 2020 amount of Baht 2.64 million, respectively. The Company paid the principal and interest to the claimant within the specified time. 39.6 On February 5, 2018, the supplier for the Company’s construction project had filed a lawsuit to the Commercial Court requesting for payment of outstanding amount of Baht 23.5 million with interest rate of 7.5% per annum starting from filing date until completion of payment. On May 16, 2018, the Company submitted the testimony to the Court and the mediation was conducted on August 28, 2018 but could not come to an agreement. On October 1, 2018, the Court ordered the Company and the Party to determine the dispute and scheduled the date for witness investigation from both parties in March 2019. Later, on March 5 - 7, 2019, both parties were conducting the witness examination of each party but the witness examination of the Company was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of additional witness examination on April 26, 2019. Later on April 26, 2019, the Company was conducting the witness examination but the process was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of witness examination on May 29, 2019. Later on May 29, 2019, the Company was conducting the witness examination but the process was not finished. Therefore, the Court had ordered for the appointment of witness examination on July 12, 2019. Later on July 12, 2019, the Company has proceeded with the witness examination. Both parties announced to finish the witness investigation. The Court ordered to prepare an announcement for closing the case to be filed to the Court within August 15, 2019. On October 9, 2019, the Court ordered the Company to pay the outstanding amount for goods in the amount of Baht 23.5 million with interest rate 7.5% per annum from February 6, 2018 until settlement is completed. Court’s ruling No.2 request to suspend the case execution. On October 15, 2020 the Appeal Court 2 received the petition for appeal and ordered the Company to stay the execution of the sentence for the Company to place collateral in front of the court for the amount to be settled under the ruling of the Court of First Instance along with interest until the hearing date and 1 year further in the full amount on November 17, 2020. The Appeal Court 2 scheduled the case ruling on December 9, 2020. On February 11, 2021, the Company and the plaintiff were agreed and the Company agreed to pay the debt to the plaintiff amounted Baht 18 million into 3 installments at Baht 2 million, Baht 8 million and Baht 8 million. The plaintiff will not intend to appeal the case and this case is considered as finalized, the Company has recorded the outstanding amount of goods in the financial statements. As a result, the Company is not required to provide a provision for contingent liabilities. 39.7 On October 16, 2017, the Nakhon Ratchasima Administrative Court accepted a case between a litigant and the government agencies, requesting the Court to issue an order as relating to the following; 1) Requesting that the government agencies revoke the permission to use the water from a reservoir that had been granted to the associate.