Authority: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi

Order Date: 20.08.2026

Case Overview

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) heard three connected contempt petitions (Contempt Case (AT) Nos. 25, 26, and 27 of 2026) filed by Krishan Vrind Jain, the Resolution Professional for Majestic Hotels Ltd. (Corporate Debtor). The petitions allege that the Respondents (Amandeep Kaur & Ors. in Case No. 25, and Raman Khangura & Ors. in Cases No. 26 and 27) are violating two previous orders: the NCLT Chandigarh order dated 17.03.2026 and the NCLAT order dated 29.05.2026.

The matter concerns the insolvency resolution of Majestic Hotels Ltd., which operates the five-star Hotel Majestic Park Plaza in Ludhiana through Sarovar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. since 1996. The Resolution Professional alleged that certain portions of the hotel property remain in possession of the suspended management and through Tru Prime Private Limited. Specifically, the NCLT's 17.03.2026 order (in IA No.2486 of 2024) had directed the suspended management to hand over possession of: a salon on the second floor; 13 shops on the third floor; 5 residential rooms (numbers 1802 to 1806 on the 8th floor) used by Ms. Amandeep Khangura; and the 9th floor portion used as residence by Respondents 1 and 4 and their families. The deadline for vacating was two weeks from the order date.

Two appeals were filed against this NCLT order (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 686 of 2026 and 801 of 2026). The NCLAT dismissed both appeals on 29.05.2026 but granted an additional two weeks for vacation, making the new deadline 12.06.2026. As of 20.08.2026, the possession had still not been handed over, leading to the filing of these contempt petitions.

Final Outcome

The NCLAT issued formal notice to the Respondents in all three contempt petitions and allowed dasti service (personal service). The matters have been listed for further hearing on 15.09.2026, marked "high on board." The Tribunal has not yet made a final determination on the contempt allegations but has initiated proceedings based on the prima facie violation of its previous orders.

Topics: Insolvency Resolution, Contempt of Court, Property Possession