Resolution applicants invited for Jaisalmer’s Hotel Jaisalkot; EOIs close September 21

Expressions of interest have been invited for Girivar Hotel and Resort Private Limited, which owns and operates the 50-room luxury property Hotel Jaisalkot in Jaisalmer, with prospective resolution applicants having until September 21, 2026 to respond.

Interim resolution professional Gunjan Jain issued Form G on August 24, 2026 under Regulation 36A. The provisional list of prospective resolution applicants is due October 1, objections to it October 6, and the final list October 16. The information memorandum, evaluation matrix and request for resolution plans go out on October 21, with resolution plans to be submitted by November 20, 2026. EOIs are to be sent to cirpgirivarhotel@gmail.com.

MSME tag keeps promoters in the frame

Form G records the corporate debtor as a registered MSME (UDYAM-RJ-17-0645656). That is material to who can bid: under Section 240A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the disqualifications in Section 29A(c) and 29A(h) do not apply to MSME corporate debtors, leaving the promoter group free to submit a resolution plan for the asset unless caught by another limb of Section 29A.

The asset on offer is a single operating hotel. Form G reports revenue from operations of Rs 2,88,75,409 for the year ended March 31, 2025, installed capacity of 50 rooms, and 34 employees “as claimed by the erstwhile management”. The property sits on land at Khasra No. 26, Village Manpia, Gram Panchayat Amarsagar, Jaisalmer, which is also the primary security held by the financial creditor. Collateral in the same lending pool includes plots at Bajrang Nagar, Kishangarh Renwal, in Jaipur district, and a commercial plot at Vinayak Nagar, Kismidesar, Bikaner — held against the personal guarantors rather than the corporate debtor.

The admission behind the process

The company was admitted into the corporate insolvency resolution process by the Jaipur bench of the National Company Law Tribunal on July 29, 2026. The bench of Judicial Member Reeta Kohli and Technical Member Kavita Bhatnagar allowed a Section 7 petition, CP No. (IB)-06/07/JPR/2026, filed by India SME Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd (ISARC), the assignee of Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI), claiming a default of Rs 40,67,79,067.82 as on October 31, 2025.

The tribunal appointed Gunjan Jain (IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P02876/2024-25/14409) as IRP, imposed the Section 14 moratorium, suspended the board and directed ISARC to deposit Rs 1 lakh towards initial CIRP costs. Form G followed 26 days later.

SIDBI had sanctioned three term loans for the Jaisalmer project — Rs 5.50 crore (letter of intent March 22, 2010), Rs 3.50 crore (August 1, 2011) and Rs 2.50 crore (November 6, 2013) — aggregating Rs 11.50 crore. The first two facilities were restructured twice, in August 2011 and July 2013, on account of time and cost overruns, with terminal dates pushed to March 2019 and February 2020.

Personal guarantees were taken from Arvind Singh Chauhan, Nanda Singh Chauhan, Natasha Singh Chauhan, Manvendra Singh Chauhan, Gajendra Singh Panwar and Ranveer Singh. The account was classified NPA on June 10, 2014. SIDBI issued a recall notice on October 13, 2016 for Rs 12,07,28,918, invoked the guarantees on December 5, 2016, served a Section 13(2) SARFAESI demand on December 12, 2016, and moved DRT Jaipur in OA No. 177 of 2017 for Rs 12,82,84,533. The loan accounts and securities were assigned to ISARC on January 18, 2018.

Eight one-time settlement offers followed, escalating from Rs 8 crore in October 2018 to Rs 18.50 crore in April 2025. ISARC declined the last of them on May 7, 2025, asking the borrower to “substantially increase” the offer, and filed the Section 7 petition later that year.

The DRT decree defence

Girivar’s central objection was that the debt had already been adjudicated. It told the tribunal that DRT Jaipur, by a final order dated January 23, 2026, crystallised its liability at Rs 12.82 crore with 8 per cent simple interest and gave it six months to liquidate the amount through sale of mortgaged properties. Until that window expired, the company argued, the debt might be “due” but was not “payable” within Section 3(12), making the petition premature.

It further alleged that ISARC had suppressed a subsisting status quo direction passed by DRT Jaipur on January 9, 2026 in MA No. 177 of 2019 — an order ISARC has itself challenged before DRAT Delhi — and that the Rs 40.67 crore claim was inflated against the judicially crystallised figure. It also pleaded limitation, pointing to inconsistent NPA dates across ISARC’s own documents, and argued that the petition was unsupported by loan account statements and rested on a NeSL record the corporate debtor had marked “disputed”.

The bench rejected the maintainability and limitation objections. Citing Tejas Khandhar v. Bank of Baroda, it held the repeated OTS proposals — including those of December 2024, January 2025 and April 2025 — were acknowledgements of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, extending limitation from the stated default date of October 13, 2016. On the parallel-proceedings point it relied on G. Sundaravadivelu v. Indian Overseas Bank and Pawan Kumar v. Central Bank of India to hold that DRT pendency is no bar to a Section 7 action, the two statutes serving different objects — recovery under the RDB Act, resolution under the Code. On the conflicting NPA dates it applied Rahul Kumawat v. Bank of India, holding that NPA classification cannot found a challenge to admission where debt and default are established.

The order records no separate finding on three of the corporate debtor’s pleas: the alleged suppression of the January 9, 2026 status quo direction, the absence of loan account statements, and the “disputed” NeSL entry. Those omissions are the most likely grounds for any appeal to the NCLAT under Section 61, for which the 30-day window from July 29 has lapsed, subject to the 15-day condonable period.

---

Numbers at a glance

Item	Figure
EOI deadline / resolution plan deadline	September 21, 2026 / November 20, 2026
Admitted default claimed (as on 31.10.2025)	Rs 40,67,79,067.82
Original SIDBI sanction (3 term loans, 2010–2013)	Rs 11.50 crore
Recall notice demand (as on 10.10.2016)	Rs 12,07,28,918
DRT OA claim (2017)	Rs 12,82,84,533
Liability crystallised by DRT (per NCLT order)	Rs 12.82 crore + 8% simple interest
Highest OTS offered by borrower (April 2025)	Rs 18.50 crore
FY25 revenue from operations	Rs 2,88,75,409
Rooms / employees	50 / 34

Derived from the above (calculations, not sourced figures): the Section 7 claim is roughly 3.5 times the original sanction and about 14 times FY25 revenue; the gap between the claim and the DRT-crystallised principal is about Rs 27.9 crore; the NPA date of June 10, 2014 precedes admission by just over 12 years; the 180-day CIRP deadline falls around January 25, 2027, with the 330-day outer limit around June 24, 2027 — meaning the plan submission date of November 20 leaves roughly two months for CoC evaluation and approval within the base timeline.

Also See: OSIL Exports assets, guarantor’s Panipat land put up for Rs 117.64-crore e-auction