Majestic Hotels CIRP: Lenders push EoI deadline for Ludhiana’s Park Plaza hotel to October 16

The committee of creditors (CoC) of Majestic Hotels Ltd, which owns the Majestic Park Plaza hotel on Ferozepur Road in Ludhiana, has given prospective bidders one more month to submit expressions of interest (EoI). The deadline has moved from September 16 to October 16, 2026.

Resolution professional Krishan Vrind Jain said in a corrigendum to the Form G that the CoC agreed to the extension after several persons asked for it. The corrigendum was published on September 17 in The Tribune, Punjabi Tribune, Jansatta and Financial Express. Under the revised schedule, the provisional list of prospective resolution applicants will be issued on October 19, and objections are due by October 24. The final list will be issued on October 26, and the information memorandum, evaluation matrix and request for resolution plans will go out on October 29. The last date for submitting resolution plans is now November 28, 2026, a month later than the earlier October 29.

This is the second EoI round in the process. The Form G dated September 1, 2026 says it replaces an earlier Form G dated July 2, 2026, after the EoI process started under that notice was annulled. The notice does not give a reason for the annulment.

The hotel has 114 rooms, of which 77 are currently operational, according to the Form G. It also has five banquet halls, three restaurants, swimming pools, a spa and a gym, and employs 214 people. Revenue was Rs 21.43 crore in FY24 and Rs 21.69 crore in FY25, both audited, and Rs 22.36 crore in FY26 (provisional). The company is not registered as an MSME.

The Chandigarh bench of the National Company Law Tribunal admitted the company into insolvency on July 3, 2024. The petition was filed by UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd (UVARCL) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and claimed a default of Rs 1,435.57 crore as of February 28, 2022. The bench of Dr PSN Prasad and Satya Ranjan Prasad rejected the company’s argument that the default fell within the Covid-era Section 10A bar. It held that the default arose on February 1, 2020, before the March 25, 2020 cut-off, when the company did not pay Rs 63.39 lakh in principal due for January 2020.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) upheld the admission. A bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Indevar Pandey dismissed suspended director Kewal Krishan Sharma’s appeal in a judgment dated November 6, 2025, holding that the default occurred on 16.03.2020, before Section 10A took effect.

The debt goes back to 1991. That year the company borrowed from Tourism Finance Corporation of India (TFCI) and IFCI to build the hotel, and it took more loans from both through 1996. The two lenders classified the account as a non-performing asset in 2012. In December 2017 they assigned the debt to UVARCL. UVARCL paid Rs 10.23 crore for TFCI’s loan and Rs 6.01 crore for IFCI’s. UVARCL then agreed to a settlement of Rs 16.25 crore plus an interest-free Rs 2.84 crore, and it extended three working capital term loans. Under the 2017 settlement MoU, the settlement would lapse automatically if a missed instalment was not cleared within a 45-day cure period. After the company missed payments from January 2020, the full original dues revived.

UVARCL dominates the CoC. According to the list of creditors dated June 7, 2025, the ARC claimed Rs 1,972.78 crore. Of this, Rs 1,807.85 crore was admitted and Rs 164.92 crore was not, because of a difference in the interest rate applied on the TFCI term loan and on optionally fully convertible debentures issued to IFCI/TFCI. The ARC holds a 99.85% voting share.

The process has also been contested in other ways. Shareholders filed an application before the NCLT offering to pay the entire balance with interest under the 2017 settlement. It was disposed of on March 28, 2025, with liberty to apply under Section 12A. Separately, the NCLAT upheld an order directing Raman Khangura and her father-in-law Jagpal Singh Khangura to vacate the ninth floor of the hotel, which the resolution professional and CoC had argued was an asset of the corporate debtor.

The process is now well past the IBC’s 330-day outer limit for completing a CIRP. The tribunal records available do not show whether any periods have been excluded from that count.

Also See: Suspended director wins back Sapphire Hospitals under IBC; lenders recover 11% of ₹213 crore dues