 What difference does it make? I'm just narrowing down the question. What difference does it make if the contract is notarized rather than having a proper agreement that is stamping it? Does it make any difference? Notarizing is not compulsory in our law. He refers to, I mean, if it's an international situation, then perhaps the law of another country with which a party is contracting or the person in another country with which a party is contracting might require notarization and if that is the case, it might be necessary. Notarizing only adds, I would say, one more layer of credibility to the contract. One thing is that if you and I have a contract and we both are happy notarizing it, that's very good. Both of us feel more bound by our signatures if it is notarized. There is also a small presumption. I say small because that may not always be applied, a presumption about signatures if a particular contraction is notarized. But otherwise, notarization, I mean, if you're happy notarizing, no problem, but the law does not require notarization. I would also request Nitin Kumarji to go to civil law, just Google civil law notary and common law notary. Civil law notaries, let us say, are notaries in the European countries, not England. They have a much larger role to fulfill. In fact, you will find that some notarized documents can be effectively enforced as if they are a decrease. There's no need to go to court. So they have a larger role to fulfill. Whereas notaries in India or the common law systems, they are more for the purpose of just lending authentication to signatures.